House Public Health Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (7)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1428
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1428”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1593
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1593”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1317
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1317”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1594
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1594”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1598
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…s ma'am excuse me did i miss did you say we're passing over hb 1598 by”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB355
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ing here. I'll ask one more time on Central Laverty's bill, Senate Bill 355. Doesn't look like there's anyone here that's going to pres…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB359
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB359”
|
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
If everyone would, please take their seat. Good morning. The chair sees a quorum, and we have a lot of work to do today, so we are going to get on with our work. And the first thing that we're going to, on our agenda today, is House Bill 1317, which is a
concurrence in a Senate amendment. I'm going to run that and ask Representative Allen if he will
Speaker 10
0:32
chair while I'm doing that I'll go this way you come this way Madam Chair you're recognized Thank
you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, this is a concurrence to an amendment
that the Senate put on to
House Bill 1317. If you will remember the bill, it has to do with the immunization registry that provides a registry of immunizations for adults. And the amendment that was placed in the Senate, which I think is a good amendment, by the is that the provider may provide this adult immunization information to the registry upon receiving consent from the adult.
So that provides the opportunity for the adult to give consent to the provider to have that information into
the registry. So with that, that's the only change to the bill, and I would ask for a good
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:55
vote. okay what's the place of the
Speaker 18
1:59
committee you recognize mr. chairman I move we pass this amendment do
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
2:03
pass concur okay all in favor congratulations
Thank you, members, for that, and we'll move on to our next item on the agenda, which is a special order of business, and
that's House Bill 1428, Representative Hutchinson, if you'll take your place at the end
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
2:43
of the table and proceed. Thank you, Madam Chairman and committee members. I hate to start off in a humble mode, but if you look at your bill, you will see Section 1, Temporary Language, Do Not Codify.
I will have to have an amendment on the way to the Senate to take that out. That's just a technical line that wasn't supposed to be included. It was just part of the drafting process, and it was accidentally included in the amendment. So I need to let you know that that will be corrected as it heads toward the Senate. House Bill 1428 is a result of the federal health care reform. It created a gap in coverage for children 19 and under.
They do not have access to insurance through their parents' group policy. Let me say that again. They do not have access to insurance. They can't buy it. Even if they had the money, they cannot buy insurance. And there's a timeline. March 15th is the deadline. The Federal Act provided that health insurance companies sold individual health insurance policies to children under 19. They would have to do so on a guaranteed issue basis without preexisting condition, exclusions, or health underwriting.
As such, the majority of the companies chose not to sell insurance to children under 19. This bill would require health insurance companies that do business in the state to hold an open enrollment period every October to allow children under 19 to purchase insurance. In other words, they will have a right to purchase insurance without any medical underwriting or preexisting condition. This is basically a door to CHIPS, the state's high risk pool that will allow them to enroll such children in their plan until October.
until October. It would authorize CHIPS to develop policies in order to possibly write children under 19 after the open enrollment. This contains an emergency clause. We have over 200 children that cannot get insurance at the present time, so we need to have something happen by March 15. I've had three bills this week that are a result of a constituent that called and said, here's the problem, but they also said, here's the solution. I like when
constituents call with that. And one of my constituents, John Jarks from Pea Ridge, he is an insurance agent. He called me sometimes back and said, this is the problem and I think I know how to solve it. So, permission of the chair, I'd like John to come and tell his story madam chairman he can explain it better than me yes ma'am I invite him to
the table and he can introduce himself for the record please Sir, before you
begin, let me do a little housekeeping here, if I may.
Ladies and gentlemen in the back, we don't have banners
and buttons and posters and things in our committee room or in our chamber. So if you would take those to the outside of the committee room, I would appreciate it very much. And just as a reminder, the table is for the House members and to please have courtesy to not approach our House members while we are here in committee deliberating. If you have some information that you want to get to the committee, you can bring those up here to the desk,
and we'll certainly look at that and consider that in the process we're in. And we'll also then, if you want to speak on behalf of a bill or against a bill, you have the opportunity to sign up to do that. So I just wanted to do a little housekeeping. So I'm sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to do that before we've moved
John Jarks
Unverified
6:55
along too far. Thank you. Madam Chair, my name is John Jarks, and I own an insurance agency over in Pea Ridge, Arkansas, called AOK Insurance,
and we mainly deal with health insurance for individuals. Madam Chair, I would like to thank you and all the honorable committee members for taking the time to hear our concerns today. As you're aware, under recent federal health care legislation, it now prohibits health insurance carriers from imposing preexisting conditions, exclusions, and waiting periods on individuals under the age of 19. As a response to the passage of the federal health care law last year, we have seen almost every carrier in Arkansas but one, Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield,
no longer offer child-only individual health insurance policies. Even though Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield is still offering child-only individual health insurance policies, It is only during a limited enrollment period, and Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield may at some point choose to discontinue this program as well. This would leave our state with no insurance carrier offering child-only individual health insurance policies.
The best way that I know that can tell you about the effects on your constituents is to basically tell you a little bit about the phone calls we've been receiving in our office just the last few weeks. I had a gentleman call me, and the gentleman said, I'm looking for health insurance for my son. He has a Mercy Health plan. It's going to be ending March 15th. We are told by the carrier that they're exiting the market and to obtain other coverage.
i told the gentleman that i'm sorry at this time i have no carriers that will offer your child a child only individual health insurance policy he i told him the best thing he could possibly do is add them to his existing policy and he said but john i can't and i said why not he said well well, I have an Arkansas CHIPS policy, a comprehensive insurance pool policy.
And I called down there, and they told me I could not add my child to the policy. And I said, well, the only thing that I can recommend at this time is wait until Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield has their open enrollment period, and then you'll have an effective date of January 1, 2012. and oh by the way we have to hope that they don't end their program because they do then there won't be any insurance for that child
another person called in seeking for seeking coverage for a family this gentleman him and I got to talking back and forth and he told me yeah he had the same situation we had Mercy Health Plan leaving he got a letter in the mail saying they're exiting the market he's trying to obtain coverage he said John you know I just found out that my wife is pregnant and we're about to have our third child and I congratulated him and then I had to inform him
that we will be able to attain coverage on your wife but we will not be able to attain coverage on you or your children and he goes what do you mean I'm healthy my children are healthy why can we not obtain coverage And I said, well, let me explain. Basically, the way it works is on your wife, we can apply to a carrier, and she'll be declined because of medical reasons. And then that would give us access to the CHIPS program.
So your wife, we can insure. But for you, because there's no insurance carriers out there that will insure a parent, an expecting parent, we can't offer you coverage. And if you don't get coverage, then your children are not going to be able to offer coverage because there is no child-only policies available. And I said to him, and plus, you wouldn't even be eligible for CHIPS insurance
because, you see, with CHIPS, you have to be declined for a medical reason. He has no medical reason. towards the end of this conversation I can feel the frustration the anger and the sheer upsetness here's the deal 15 minutes prior to this phone call his entire family had coverage after this phone call he's now faced with 3 out of 4 of his people
his members of his family are going to be without coverage that's why I implore you today to pass this bill. Again, Madam Chairwoman and
Speaker 35
12:00
the Honorable Committee members, I thank you
for your time. Thank you, Mr. Jarts, for your testimony. Members, do you have any
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
12:12
questions of Representative Hutchinson? I have, I would like Insurance Commissioner Jay Bradford Representative Hutchinson,
would you turn on your mic, please? I would also like to have Insurance Commissioner I would also request that Insurance Commissioner Jay Bradford come up and give testimony also Is he going to be
speaking on the bill on behalf of the bill in favor of the bill or is he going to be speaking on the bill He's going
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
12:43
to be speaking on the bill Mr. Jarz, if you will
just step aside we appreciate your testimony, sir
Mr. Bradford, if you will, take your seat at the table, introduce
Speaker 42
12:58
yourself for the record. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Jay Bradford, Commissioner of Insurance. And I also want to thank the sponsor, Representative Huston, who did a great job of explaining the bill along with her constituent, the agent, Mr. Jorks. Really it's been explained properly. There is a need for this change.
There should not be any mounting opposition, broad-based opposition against this bill. It is an emergency because we have that March 15th date where we know there's going to be 200 kids that are going to be on the market for insurance. The CHIP program will take them, but they need the enabling legislation that you're going to provide if you support this bill on the committee. Thank you, Mr. Bradford.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
13:53
Representative Wagner, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had a question for the gentleman, but perhaps one of the other two may answer it. Do I understand that – I'm just curious on the example that he gave, the husband still will not be able to get coverage? That's
Speaker 42
14:17
correct. It's the children under this policy. The only one left out were the kids in that scenario there. Oh, I'm sorry.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
14:23
I thought the husband was left out too. This is the
children. Okay. Thank you. Representative Allen, you're recognized. Motion at the appropriate time. Seeing no other questions, we'll take your motion. Representative Allen. Do pass. We have a motion do pass on House Bill 1428. Anyone wants to speak against the bill? Anyone wants to speak for the bill? So we're ready for the question.
All in favor of a due pass for House Bill 1428, indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Representative Hutchinson, you have passed your bill. Thank
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
15:04
you, and I will add that technical amendment to the bill. Thank you, committee.
Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Representative Wright are you here to present
your bill Representative McLean are you here to present your bill Representative Bradford
Representative Allen if you will take your seat at
the end of the table sir for House Bill
Speaker 56
15:49
1593 Excuse me Representative Allen is going to pass
at this time Is that right? Representative Allen, is that correct? Are we passing over your bill for now? Representative Ratliff. Representative Senator Laverty. Is anyone going to be here to present Senator Laverty's bill? All right. Representative Allen, I see that you are ready now to present your bill. House Bill 1593, if you'll take your place at the end of the table,
have your guest introduce himself for the record, and
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
16:34
then proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. This is R.T. Williams. with Workforce Development, and I'm going to allow
R.T. to explain the bill. Yes, sir. Go ahead
Speaker 63
16:49
and introduce yourself for the record, please. My name is R.T. Williams, Director, Arkansas Department of Workforce Services, and we're here on House Bill 1593, which is an amendment to the TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy
families legislation, and this is really housekeeping legislation. If you look at the strikethroughs, you'll see the Department is required to make several reports at various times to the House and Public Health Committee. We've looked at that very closely and can actually meet that requirement by submitting to the committee a comprehensive annual report, which will certainly be more efficient and also save money. So we're requesting that we be allowed to change those individual reports to one comprehensive
annual report. That's our request. Ladies and gentlemen of
the committee, you've heard the presentation of the bill. Any questions on the bill? Representative Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. Forgive
me for asking, but was there any particular reason why it was initially set up to be quarterly reporting? I don't know why
Speaker 67
18:05
it would have been that way. Do you? I don't know. The initial legislation was passed
Speaker 63
18:10
in 1997. There have been several amendments adding various reports over the course of that time.
Speaker 70
18:16
But you're confident that we won't lose any data and not have to reply quicker than once a year? Is that what you're saying? I'm
Speaker 67
18:23
confident. And if this committee or any committee needs information at
Speaker 63
18:26
any time regarding the program, we're more than happy to provide any interim or special report. And by doing an annual report, we will
save considerable funds. Is that correct? MR. Correct. And also, we report to the U.S.
Speaker 63
18:36
Health and Human Services Department on an annual basis as well. So this saves us in a lot of ways. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. MS.
Representative Word, you're recognized. MR. Motion at the proper time. MS. Seeing no other.
Representative James L. Word
Unverified
18:59
Representative Pinard. Just this is almost I could assume this but I won't I'll ask the question will this be available on your website yes ma'am absolutely thank you
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
19:09
thank you madam chair seeing no other questions representative word
what's your motion do pass we have a motion do pass
on house bill 1593 do we have anyone in who wants to speak against the bill
anyone who Who wants to speak for the bill? Representative Allen, you're closed
for your bill. All in favor of House Bill 1593, do pass. Indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Representative Allen, you have passed your bill. Now we have next on the agenda House Bill 1594. Do you want to go ahead and present that, Representative Allen? Without objection. Okay, let's go ahead and
do that. And again, introduce your guests for the record.
Speaker 13
19:51
Mr. R.T. Williams with Workforce Development. Mr.
Speaker 63
19:58
Chairman and members of the committee, again, this is housekeeping legislation. Essentially, the state code has not kept pace with the federal code. And we're simply asking that we be allowed to update the state code to match the federal. No changes in operations except in Section 1. One, the State Workforce Board has determined that it's for them to meet on a call basis.
The executive committee is required by this statute to meet every other month. Sometimes there's not enough business for them to meet. This saves travel costs and time and effort. So the executive committee will meet at the call of the chair or by vote of the executive committee meetings. and this was recommended to us by the State Workforce Board. That's section one. The other sections, again, help us comply with federal law. The second section deals with the makeup of the local workforce boards.
Again, no change in how those boards operate or the makeup, but simply brings our state legislation into compliance with federal legislation. The last section deals with administrative costs. By federal law, you cannot spend more than 10 percent federal workforce investment funds for administration. Our state law indicates 15 percent, but let me assure you we've never exceeded 15 percent because by regulation the state workforce board has always required the local boards to expend 10 percent. We also do audits to ensure that
that's the case. But again, this brings us into statutory compliance with the federal statute. And those are the three changes. Representative Wagner,
you're recognized. Motion do pass. Any
other questions for the committee before I accept that motion? Representative Penartz, you're
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
21:56
recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to – on page 3, you've done a lot of deletions there.
Are those deletions counteracted by the revision on page 2 delineating who might be appointed? Mr. Penares, that's absolutely correct. Okay. Thank
a motion due passed from Representative Wagner on House Bill 1594. Anyone want to speak against the motion on the bill? want to speak for the bill?
Representative Allen, you're closed on the bill. Madam Chair, we're closed. All in favor indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Representative Allen, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Williams, for being here. I'll ask one more time on Central Laverty's bill, Senate Bill 355. Doesn't look like there's anyone here that's going to present that bill. that brings us to city bill 359 senator johnson if you will take your place at the end of the table
and any guests that you have with you introduce have them introduce themselves for the record and proceed representative
Speaker 86
23:17
penards yes ma'am excuse me did i miss did you say we're passing over hb 1598 by
here to present that bill so So thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, sir. Oh, yes, ma'am.
All right, Senator Johnson, if you will have your
esteemed colleague introduce himself for the record, and then you can present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm Senator Jason Rappert. Thank you, Madam
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
23:50
Chair, members of the committee. Senator Rappert is going to help
Speaker 93
23:56
me present the bill. So, members, I've talked to you all about this, about
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
24:01
children's dental health already this session. As you may remember, there was a report that came out, a national report that came out
Speaker 96
24:10
a year ago that studied the 50 states on children's
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
24:14
dental health, and it ranked the states on eight benchmarks. And Arkansas came out poorly on that report, fell in the bottom tier, received a grade of F. There were several factors that caused that situation. But the greatest of them was the provision of fluoride in water to children in the state, to all people in the state, but particularly for purposes of this report, children.
Fluoride is a substance that occurs naturally in water. And some water sources have sufficient fluoride to add protection for the enamel, which is what fluoride does. Fluoride builds up the enamel and helps fight off decay and deterioration. But many water sources and many modern water supplies don't have sufficient fluoride. So just as we add iodine to salt and vitamin D to milk and chlorine to water, many water sources add fluoride to water to provide that essential nutrient to children and all people that drink it.
It is so important. Studies show that for children with baby teeth, that if they drink water with a sufficient amount of fluoride, that tooth decay decreases by 60 percent and adults isn't quite that impressive but it's still a pretty good 35 percent and that's pretty good nationally this is a national figure not not the state of arkansas but nationally it's estimated that the u.s. students lose approximately 51 hours 51 million hours of school every year due to untreated teeth problems
many of which are caused by cavities and things that could be prevented with this kind of preventive approach. So for those reasons, in part, is why we have this bill, Senate Bill 359. It would provide that any water system that provides water to 5,000 people or more in the state would have to put fluoride in the water that would meet the standards set by the Department of Health. There would be upfront capital costs, but the bill provides that no water system would
have to pay for those upfront capital costs. Really, when you're talking about fluoride, it's those upfront capital costs where you're talking about the vast bulk of the cost. And so there's a provision in the bill. No water system has to comply with the bill until the money comes from another source. And one great development in this whole effort is that Delta Dental Foundation has pledged half a million dollars to help local water systems with that effort. And so we've got a great opportunity, really, financially, if you look at this.
If a water system before today were to go fluoride, they would on their own have to pay for that upfront capital cost for the equipment. But we're in a situation now where Delta Dental is willing to help out with this, and our part of it is to approve this bill. There's a clause in there, as you may see. It's the Texarkana Clause, I think, is how it's been known, because Texarkana receives its water from Bowie County, Texas, and it would be very, very difficult or virtually impossible to add fluoride to that water. So the bill provides an exception toward the end of it.
If you receive your water from an out-of-state water supply, such as Bowie County, Texas, you don't have to comply with the bill. Aside from the obvious health benefits, there are significant financial and fiscal positive benefits of the bill. I can give you the details on these numbers, But we've done the math, and I'm very comfortable telling you that for children alone, and children only make up one-fourth of the population.
Speaker 96
27:53
I'm talking about people only at the age of 18. That the total cost
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
27:59
of dental care for children alone in the state of Arkansas,
if we implemented this bill, once fully implemented, would decrease by a little over $3 million. That's out-of-pocket expenses that our constituents pay. That's money that insurance companies are paying. That's money that Medicaid is paying. And the number for Medicaid is $1.1 million. That's a combined total of both the federal and state shares of Medicaid. That's what we would save if we implemented this bill. There is strong, strong public support in the state of Arkansas for this bill, too.
The organizations that support this bill ran a poll right when the session was beginning in mid-January. And in the poll, the people in the state of Arkansas, the bill was described basically. And it was presented as a bill that would require an additional 32 water systems, which is what this bill would do to
Speaker 96
28:56
put fluoride in their water. How do you feel about that? And 62 percent of the respondents supported or strongly supported that measure.
That's pretty good. Twenty-eight opposed it. In addition to the public, the Arkansas State Dental Association strongly supports it. The American Dental Association strongly supports it. the American Dental Association, you can go on their website, and
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
29:17
they have all kinds of webpages and things about it. It's an important thing to do. Madam Chair, members of the committee, I'm going to let my colleague, Senator Raypert, give you his more personal perspective on this issue. Senator Raypert, you're recognized.
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
29:35
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to my colleagues on this
other end of the legislature. When I had this issue presented to me, I began to think long and hard about the issues on both sides. And I fortunately have some personal perspective on this that I hope that you can listen to. The best way in the world to understand an issue is when it comes right to your own house. And a few years ago, my family moved from a city in Faulkner County, Conway, and we moved
to Prairie County, which put me in my district. And in that move, we continued to use our dentist there in Conway, and we noticed within about six months that the dental health of our two little girls began to deteriorate. We didn't stop brushing teeth. They were still doing what mom and dad told them to do, but we noticed that there began to be a pretty good deterioration, and so then we began to ask why and really look deeply
at this. Well, it just so happens that the pediatric dentist that we were working with at the time had some cases that came from my county as well. And we figured out and identified the fact that we did not have fluoridated water in the system that we had moved to. The doctor said there's a simple solution to this. Go down to the grocery store, buy you some nursery water. You can buy it in gallon jugs in Kroger, anywhere. And have your daughters begin to take a drink of that fluoridated water
rather than taking it right out of the tap, and we did so. And within the next few months, especially during the next year, our children's dental health improved dramatically. And so at that time, we actually began to miss the fact that we had fluoridation in our water system in Conway where we had lived at the time. And so when I was presenting this information, and I got a lot of information from both sides on this issue,
I began to step back and try to come away from some of the more heated discussions, some of the concerns. And I have a parallel for this, Madam Chairman. As you know, I do a little mission work in West Africa. And in 2005, I was able to participate as a Rotarian in rotary polio vaccinations. And many decades ago in this country, polio was crippling and maiming people by the thousands.
And, you know, government is just a matter of when people come together and try to do something good and try to prevent things that are bad. And our government, as many of you know, some of you older folks, forgive me, but you've got a little circle on your arm where you had a polio vaccination. Now, my great-grandfather, Mr. Otis Vester, was crippled from polio. He didn't have a chance to have the polio vaccination. He didn't have a chance to do something good.
And when I was in Africa, I was able to participate in the Two Drops of Life program. It's a polio vaccine given to children. And to my amazement, village elders and some chiefs there would hide their children because they said we were poisoning and going to kill those children. And that's the reason why in West Africa and parts of India today that we have not totally eradicated polio in this world. Now, I'm not telling you that tooth decay is anything like polio,
but I'm telling you that there's a parallel in the fact that you can't demonize something that actually has an opportunity to do some good. I have actually had in the past few days many of my constituents contact me and beg, frankly, that they be included in those systems less than 5,000 people. And so on this issue, I would appeal to my colleagues, this isn't a partisan issue. It's a public health issue. If you have concerns about where fluoride is coming from,
we don't have to buy it from sources that do bad things. You know, we quit taking toys from China because they were using lead in their paint. We don't have to take fluoride from China either, for that matter. So from my personal perspective, all I have to add to tell you is in a very personal way, my family has actually benefited. And then also from the perspective of the debate on this issue, there are many places in this world that today will tell you that when you're trying to do good things for them, you're killing them, and it's just not the case.
And so I ask that as this committee debates this issue to please use good judgment and think about the fact that there are some people that want fluoride that can't afford to do everything that you suggest they do. Arkansas is number two in poverty in this country right now. I think that if we have an opportunity to help and a
Speaker 104
34:38
good public benefit, that we should do so. And that's my opinion on this matter. Thank
you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rayford. Senator Johnson, are we ready to take questions now?
Yes. All right, committee, we have a
few questions already. Representative Smith, you're recognized for a question.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, my scar on my
arm was from smallpox vaccination, but I know what you're saying. And I'm old enough to have one. I misspoke. I apologize. That's fine. I didn't mean to throw mud in your eye. But, again, I have a question, and I thank you for bringing this bill, Senator Johnson. And on page one, you talk about the line 32, and clarify this for me if you would.
It says through a consecutive system or consecutive system to 5,000 persons or more. Do you mean 5,000 customers or 5,000 total headcount? Can you clarify that, please? 5,000 total headcount. Total headcount. So not necessarily 5,000 customers. That's right. Okay, so if there's four persons in the house, multiply by four. Okay, thank you. Now, next question, and I think it's my last one here. how often is the water system evaluated to see how much fluoride is actually needed? Does anyone have an answer to that?
Do we do an evaluation periodically or just once in a lifetime say you need it and that's how much we
Speaker 102
36:04
put in there? The system does a daily check on the fluoride to make sure that the level is appropriate with
the standard set for the water system. Okay, so each system has, once this is in place, it has its own self-evaluating technique. That's right. Is that right? That's right. Thank you, and thank you,
Madam Chair. Thank you. Representative Gaskell, you're recognized.
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
36:27
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for coming here, both senators.
I have a great deal of admiration for you, and I'm through with that part of it, okay? You can keep on if you like. You realize when the Salk and Sabin vaccine first came out for polio that there was about 30 percent of the people that were stupid enough to be against it. And I'm just wondering this these days, whenever we're worried about putting something in water, okay, or putting something here, we live in an organized society,
and some of these things have to be done. I'm just wondering, when people are really against fluoridation, I wonder what kind of salt they buy. The government now has, for 50 years, put iodine in salt. At my age of 81, when I was a kid, I saw goiters as big as watermelons. And so by the simple addition of iodine to this, not only did we save millions of dollars, we saved millions of lives. So you have my endorsement, and I admire you both.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
37:32
Don't ask me to kill somebody. Okay? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Representative Caskey. Representative Wagner, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to page 1, line 32, how did you select 5,000 or more
as the limiting factor? That's a good question, Representative Wagner. I appreciate your asking that, and there's a little history to that. We began last year when we started working on this bill.
We started with 5,000 people, but there was a brief moment in time last fall where we We considered, in fact, we had a draft of the bill that provided for water systems of 1,000 people or more, which would have added a significant number. Under the bill right now, the population that's served by fluoridated water will increase from 60% to 81% of the state's population. And if we had done 1,000, I think it would put us in the 90s, which would be a great thing. But the trick is when you get into those smaller water systems, a lot of them don't have the personnel to take care of it.
And so the Department of Health ends up, they're engineers, and they have a staff of engineers at the Department of Health. They're the ones that come out and add that support. The problem was, even though we considered 1,000 for a short period of time, the Department of Health finally came back and said, we don't have the staff to do it. And so basically, we're doing 5,000 right now. And then hopefully, when this bill is fully implemented, And, hopefully, when we have a request from
Speaker 102
39:06
those people who still aren't served by fluoridated water, we can revisit how to approach them, too.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
39:22
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Mayberry, you have a question? MR. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to say that I've had fluoridated water for a number of years, and I don't think that I've had any ill effects from that, although there may be some folks who disagree. I am convinced that fluoridated water helps prevent tooth decay. I think it's
a good thing. I'm glad I have fluoridated water. My concern with this bill is regarding telling individuals what they have to do, and this may be a question maybe more for Senator Rayford as well, because I know your political philosophy would typically go along
those lines. Is there – I know, for instance, in my own district, I've got the Sardis Water System It covers about 13,000, 14,000 folks. And they took a vote 30-some-odd years ago not to add fluoride to their water. And to my knowledge, I don't think they've ever had ongoing discussion about that since then. I don't think there's been any kind of updated information out there for them. And their water commission has chosen to take the position that they want to stand behind what their people had told them a number of years ago.
not that they are necessarily, the commission itself, not that they're necessarily against fluoridating their water, but that their users had told them a long time ago, don't do this. In further conversations with their commission, their commissioners, they have mentioned that they would be willing to support this bill if there were some sort of opt-out arrangement, that it could even be a mandate to fluoridate as long as the local communities and the local cities had an opportunity to go back and survey their people again
and have that opportunity to opt out of that if they wanted to. I know there are a lot of people in that community I've talked to who they don't even know one way or the other whether they have fluoride in their water and might well be willing to do that. Is that an opportunity? Is that something that could be looked at?
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
41:49
Well, let me say right now, of course, the current law is any water system can on its own fluoridate its water. And so the situation that you present, I think, is very close to the current law. And, Representative Mayberry, I want to say that I hear your argument about local control, and I understand it.
And I agree with you that there are issues that truly are uniquely local and that should be addressed locally. But we deal with statewide issues, and, of course, toot decay is not a uniquely local issue. It's a statewide issue. And for all of us, we do this every day. We do a balancing act on these bills every day. We hear an argument or we have some value against the bill. And the value, and I put value in local control.
But the question for us is, is that local control value outweighed by all the great health benefits that this bill would offer and all the great financial and fiscal benefits? And to me and so many other people in this room, in this situation, local control is greatly outweighed by all those benefits. Madam Chair, in fact, the
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
42:57
question was addressed to me, if I could respond as well. Yes, sir. You bring up a great point, and you know my philosophy.
And I would ask my colleagues to consider the fact that there are some constituents that are calling on us to do something to help them. so this is a local choice in that i have people that are contacting me and asking that we support this because their system at this time does not floridate but they want that uh... i won't bring up a particular system it's something i would have to talk with uh... our colleagues later about that
uh... there's a system that provides water for literally thousands and thousands of people through central arkansas and because of the way it's set up it doesn't necessarily fall under this bill and uh... and they have asked they would like to be included in this and so i hope at some time that there could be something addressed but representative maybe you're exactly right and uh... you know when we decided to get into this business and people elected us to serve them we have to serve the interests of the people that represent that we represent
in this particular issue I have no question in my mind that I'm responding to needs of people, not only in my district, I'm responding actually to the health professionals in my state as well. And so I understand the conflict there, and I would not be truthful. I could have sat by and not spoken up on this issue, but if there's one thing that I want to do, I want to tell the truth. And in this particular issue, my family has benefited from this, and I think that some
Some of the issues being raised are just simply inflammatory and don't take into account the benefits on the other side. Nobody's trying to poison anyone. We're Arkansans here, for goodness sake. There's nobody at the Toad Suck Water System trying to poison me over there in Perry County. And so I believe that if we would just step back a minute and try to look at this issue and consider the greater good, I think that we can come to a position that doesn't conflict our philosophy. Because in many regards, we're hearing that local issue through our constituents right
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
45:14
now. Well, I appreciate what both of you are trying to do. I don't know that we agree on the philosophy
behind it. But I appreciate your
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
45:33
philosophy there. Representative Penartz, you're recognized. Senator Johnson, I'm always glad to see you before this committee because I
know you have such non-controversial issues. So I want to thank you for the hundreds and hundreds of
e-mails opposing this bill that I've gotten. And I feel like I'll say that I received some that supported it, too. So I should have forwarded all of those to you, sir. I'm getting my share also. Oh, okay. I was looking at the bill and have looked at it several times and tried to talk to people and become informed about a vote.
I was looking at the sponsors of the bill, and Senator Rayford, I appreciate your coming and sharing your personal story, and I don't see that you're a co-sponsor of this bill. Was that just an oversight? actually it's
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
46:32
a result of due diligence representative bernard says a good question when i began having correspondence coming into me on this issue this bill was out the gate and i had not made my decision i knew my personal story but you know i can't always let my personal
situation affect my vote and so i withheld my support on that until i had looked at the issue further. And I simply came down to the fact that, you know, they chlorinate our water. Chlorine is a very deadly chemical in concentrated forms. And we accept that freely in this country and actually want that to disinfect water. And so I think it's a matter of
Speaker 136
47:13
application. It's a very good question,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
47:16
and I hope I've answered it aptly for you. Well, I appreciate
that. I guess you can be sort of considered by Senator Johnson as an unofficial co-sponsor.
Mr. Johnson, I have a couple of questions, and I'll try to be brief, Madam Chair, because I know we have a lot of people here today that want to have their input also. Just a question on page 1, line 35 and 36. Senator, there it indicates that the Department of Health would determine or control what the fluoride content would be. So you
have a sufficient background to indicate to us what that might be?
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
47:59
Yes. It would be, this is technical, but it would be,
Speaker 96
48:03
I believe, .7 parts of fluoride per million parts of water.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
48:08
And was that recently greater than that? Was the suggested amount greater than that?
Representative James L. Word
Unverified
48:14
And I think did the EPA downward, put it downward so that it would be a lesser amount? Is that correct?
Speaker 99
48:21
For many years, the EPA has had a range. It was .7 to 1.2,
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
48:26
and the EPA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services came back and
recommended adopting a uniform .7, which is the lower end of that range, pending the further evaluation. Well, would that mean that the Department
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
48:44
of Health would use that recommended level or lower? I'm certain they would. have representatives here they
Speaker 96
48:51
can speak to that issue if you want to hear
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
48:55
from them Well thank you Senator Johnson I'll ask them at that time on page 2 have you and by the
way just so everybody knows I come from Fort Smith and I come from city that's not floridated currently and there are mixed opinions about it from Fort Smith but I have sort of a different take on it other than the human take that we're going to hear probably today and already from Senator Rayford's very good personal story, which I appreciate hearing. On the second page, line three, where it says permissible concentrations, what does that
Speaker 99
49:42
mean? Well, it just basically means the same thing we were talking
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
49:53
be .7 parts per million, so that's what it would be.
And on line 12, 13, and 14, those startup costs, do you have any idea, and let me just use Fort Smith as an example, Senator, do you have any estimation of what our, if we
we were mandated to do
this, what the capital startup cost for a city of our size would be?
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
50:25
I'm told by DHS, excuse me, the Department of Health, it would be
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
50:31
$90,000 to $100,000 for Fort Smith. Okay. That would be just for
the equipment. Is that also, I guess it's just equipment since that's what you've said, so are you
aware of any other costs that may need to be made besides equipment that
Speaker 138
50:49
could increase that cost? Yes. After the initial
Speaker 116
50:52
start-up capital costs are paid for and the equipment is installed, there would
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
50:58
be. No, no. I'm just talking about initial construction or related costs. That would all be covered
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
51:04
by the $90,000 to $100,000. And
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
51:06
so you understand, and by your statement you indicate that there may be costs in excess of equipment?
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
51:15
Not so. Like buildings or construction of a building? No. All the start of the only thing I was going to add was the purchase of
Representative James L. Word
Unverified
51:26
the fluoride on an ongoing basis after the
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
51:29
system is getting it. Okay. Well, that's a separate issue. That's a separate issue I'll ask you a question about. But with regard to initial equipment cost, okay, and it says from any source other than tax revenue, and then this is a question I have on line 15. It says or service revenue regularly collected by the company, I guess, or city in this case, municipality in my case.
So that means that you're offering two different avenues for that initial capital startup cost, and one of them comes from the city and one of them comes from any source other than tax revenue?
Well, no, we're making clear with that that we don't want rate payers to
Speaker 99
52:13
pay for it and we don't want taxpayers to pay
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
52:17
for it. And so that's what those two, we're excluding those two things specifically as possibilities, and we're saying that that capital start-up cost has to come from an outside source.
It could, for example, come from the state. If the state wanted to appropriate money, I don't know of any plans the state has to do that this session. It could come from Delta Dental Foundation, and Delta Dental Foundation has made that pledge I mentioned a moment ago. So that's where that capital start-up cost is going to be coming from. People other, or companies,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
52:49
or the state, anybody other than ratepayers and taxpayers locally. Well, let me, since
you've mentioned that, let me just ask a related question to that. What would, why, if this were an important issue, and you're indicating by this bill
that it is, how is it that you didn't consider general revenue as a source to have these cities offset costs? Why isn't that an option in your mind since
you're going to require, and I mean, it's a perfectly reasonable approach to use GR. So I'm wondering why that wasn't a reasonable
approach to include in the bill or for you to file an appropriation bill to that point.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
53:36
How is it that you didn't do that? Well, I mean, we could have, but we've got free support coming from Delta Dental Foundation. And so, and Representative Pernard, you know as well as I do how tough it is to get new general revenue around here. And so if we can accomplish this with money that Delta Dental Foundation is more than happy to put up, I say that for the taxpayers
Representative James L. Word
Unverified
54:03
of this state that that's the way to go. Well, and I applaud Delta Dental.
I've been covered by them, and I applaud their
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
54:10
ability to do that with income, net income or other types of income that they have, so I applaud them. They do some very philanthropic things in this state. So you didn't do an appropriation bill because it was going to be too hard? Is that what I heard? No, because
Speaker 153
54:32
we have free money coming from elsewhere.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
54:35
Okay. no money is free I don't I've ever I am
Speaker 156
54:42
right thank you no I'll move on to the
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
54:46
next question if you wouldn't mind I've just been asked by several committee members and audience members as well and sorry to interrupt if if I can just ask the audience to please hold your applause just for just due to respect of the process and friends and colleagues and constituents that are both for and against this and so it's in no way to keep keep you silent it's just out of respect thank you
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
55:12
thank you mr. chair I know when people come to the committee
meeting they're not aware of some of our rules and and I appreciate you informing the audience members of that and madam chair I'll try to wind it up here senator You may not be aware, I know you've provided an exception, I guess, for a city in this state that receives its water supply from a community in another state. Which cities would that apply to?
Texarkana. Only? That's all I know of. Okay. Did you also consider the other part of the continuum that we who, in Fort Smith, who like Texas Arcana are a border city, sell our water in order to get revenue to cities in Oklahoma where they're not required to fluoridate. So I'm wondering if you gave equal consideration to a border city which sells its water to
our neighbors across the river in Oklahoma. I would like your help and assistance in understanding the impact that that will have on us when we are told by all of these water districts that we sell water to that we're going to lose that revenue. And I wonder how that revenue to my city budget is going to be made up. And
you would admit that that's a valid concern, wouldn't you, sir?
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
56:58
No, I think you're making several assumptions. One is that the other water systems in Oklahoma wouldn't take it. Second of all, that Fort Smith couldn't necessarily continue to provide that water, and unfluoridated, even if it became an issue, couldn't provide water that's not fluoridated and treat the water that it's providing to its own citizens. Now, I don't know if that's the case, but I do think you're making several assumptions, so I would not at this point agree with that.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
57:29
Well, let me ask you, and you may not want to answer this. If that was the case, then would you say that, yes, we would lose that revenue? If I said what was the case? If it was the case that they don't require fluoridation and we weren't able to sell them water that was not fluoridated, And wouldn't you, by
fact, just say, yeah, we're going to lose that
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
57:58
revenue? I don't think I understand the situation enough.
I don't have enough facts. I think we're going to several assumptions, and I
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
58:07
just don't think I'm prepared to answer that question. That's the problem right there. It is a flaw to me of this bill that you didn't consider a border city which sells its water. And although there may be very many positive points to the bill, and you considered Texarkana, you did not consider a city like mine, which is a border city and sells its water.
And that is a weakness in the bill, I believe. And Madam Chair, I think I don't have any further questions at this point
in time. Representative Ward, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Ward
Unverified
58:47
you, Madam Chair. Senator Johnson, you mentioned earlier that there would be funds available through Delta Dental. How would
Speaker 162
58:52
these cities or counties actually apply for these particular funds? Well, it's a foundation. I think they
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
59:01
they would apply or if the – you might need to ask someone from Delta Dental Foundation.
I think Melissa Massingill may be here from Delta Dental Foundation. Ed Schoed, who is the president of Delta Dental Foundation, is here. You may want to ask that
question to him. Representative Ward, we have Mr. Choate signed up to speak on behalf of the bill. If we can invite
Speaker 162
59:26
him now or we can wait until – yes, sir. Follow, of course. Senator Johnson, earlier we had someone from the health department to come in to say that Arkansas ranked 47th in dental hygiene.
Do you have any data or anything to support the fact that those states that probably are actually fluoridating their water probably outrank Arkansas? Well, I know there's a list of states that fluoridate,
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
59:53
a list of all states and the percentage of the population that each state offers fluoridated water to. I believe that we are close to the bottom third.
We're number 35. We're number 35. I believe we're close to the bottom third. Thank you. Seeing no further questions from the committee, we're going to take, we have a number of people who have signed up to speak for
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:00:34
and against the bill. Representative Wilkins, you're recognized. Motion, Madam Chair, to limit debate to 30 minutes each side.
We have a motion on the floor to limit debate 30 minutes on each side. That's a non-debatable motion. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Ayes have it. So we'll be limiting debate on either side. Mr. Price, if you will keep track of that. And Senator Johnson on the floor, that also includes your close.
So we'll want to manage that time. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a number of people who have signed up to speak. And since we have limited debate, one of the things I'm going to ask you to do is to think about making sure you don't repeat the testimony that you've already heard so that we can all hear the complete testimony today. And we'll do our best to get to each of you. I think the first person on the list to speak against the bill is Representative John Vines. Senator Johnson, Senator Rayford, if you will, step aside for a few minutes.
Speaker 102
1:01:40
I'd appreciate it. And Madam Chair, if you would, reserve about a minute for me at the end to
close for the bill. 30. 30 minutes to each side. Yes, sir. Representative Vines, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:02:06
Chair and committee. It's a privilege to be here in front of you today. Before I get started, I just want to introduce my guest as the city manager of the city of
Hot Springs, Mr. Lance Hudnall. We come to you today along the same lines that Representative Penartz raised with Fort Smith. I represent Hot Springs and part of Garland County, and we have a unique product there, and we consider it our water. Water is to Hot Springs what chocolate is to Hershey, Pennsylvania, beer is to Milwaukee, barbecue is to Memphis, and we have a unique product there.
I'm not here to debate the pros or the cons of the bill, just simply here to represent what we feel is our unique asset. We are offering, if I can at this time, offer an amendment to the bill that would, I believe, take care of the issues we're going to speak about. Representative Vines will hand out that
amendment. I believe the staff has it. We'll hand out that amendment and proceed. Yes.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:03:14
Before I go further, also, I believe she's signed up to speak, but I do have City Director Peggy Maruther here also, and she's going to speak later on during the crux of the meat of the bill. As you well know, Hot Springs is the city of water. We adopted an amendment in 1997 declaring a resolution that declared the city of Hot Springs is the city of water. We're located in the Valley of the Vapors. Connotations there directly to our waters.
I venture to say, coming from being raised in the eastern part of the state, there's no other community in the state that has a relationship and a significance to its water that we do. The perception of hot springs water is one of health, vitality, and healing. To do, again, not arguing the merits of the issue, we would simply ask the committee to allow us to put that to a local option. or allow us to administer that local option because the uniqueness of our water and our situation
we're simply asking for the committee's consideration so as not to hinder the marketing and promotion of one of the great jewels in the state and that is the city of hot springs in garland county with that i'm going to yield the microphone to my city manager and allow him to speak and add some comments sir if you will introduce yourself for the record thank you for being
here thank you madam chair i'm lance hudnell i'm city manager of city
Speaker 177
1:04:49
of hot springs and as such i'm not an
elected official so let me make that clear first of all but i am here to speak in favor of the amendment offered by representative vines as he mentioned hot springs is unique we think that we do fit within the scope of the amendment as he has crafted it and we do believe that that as he mentioned the city has been designated as the city of the waters we did have a vote on this several years ago where it was pretty soundly defeated, and it is important, even though the hot springs are certainly not part of the water system as such, they are often intertwined and seen
as the same type of thing in that people come to hot springs for the waters, for tourism, for those types of issues, and we do see this as being vitally important to us from that aspect and would ask that the city of hot springs and Garland County area be carved in such a manner that that could be a local option issue and not mandated by the state. And that's what we would appreciate, your support of this amendment. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, what's your pleasure?
Representative Wagner, you're recognized. Yes, you may ask a question. Is it on the amendment, ma'am? yes I was wondering would any
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
1:06:08
other counties fit this description or is it just truly your county I can't speak for the other 74 but I believe it's just unique to Garland
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:06:20
County and you want it would but it would be open to other
counties that could fall into that it's not that's why it's not name specific because other other
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
1:06:35
counties could qualify it would be helpful in our decision I think on the amendment if we knew if it applied to other counties also you mainly talked about the city but you want it to cover the the full Fulte County, why did you include the Fulte County? I'll comment
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:06:57
to that and then I'll let Mr. Hud know, but we in Garland County,
in Hot Springs, we have a unique situation where we service some of the outlying county and the waters go to county customers, if you will, so therefore felt the need to take it beyond the boundaries of
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
1:07:15
the city limits. That's fine. I understand. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative King,
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
1:07:24
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Vines, you talked about hot springs and its quality of water and the issue. Can you explain to me how or why hot springs should be better or exempted this than Eureka Springs?
In Eureka, they're pretty proud of their water, too. I mean,
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:07:46
well, when I left the rice fields of Jackson County, I just happened to land in the gym of Arkansas in Hot Springs. So, yeah, well,
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
1:07:53
it's almost an argument like you were, and I'm not, I really hate to go there, but it's the only thing that comes to my mind is you mentioned Milwaukee and beer. You know, there's a big argument between Miller and Budweiser out of St. Louis, too. So I would not venture into that argument either. I'm not going to ask you which you think is better than that. What's your preference?
I don't know that. I would know that. I think it's just a matter of opinion. I have a serious
Speaker 11
1:08:17
problem about exempting hot springs and not Eureka Springs, but I think on the bill we may be on the
same issue, but not on the amendment.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:08:32
Representative Hall, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Representative Vines, on line two here you said it receives a portion of the county's drinking water from Natural Springs. What percentage of portion are we referring to here?
What's the percentage that Hot Springs or Garland County receives from their national spring spring? I don't
Speaker 189
1:08:54
know that I can answer that. Would the city administrator know?
Speaker 177
1:08:58
No, sir, our water source is in the Worcita River just below Blakely Dam, and some of that is spring fed, but I would not be able
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:09:05
to answer exactly how much would be. Could be water runoff also, rain runner, is that what you're referring to? You received, what percentage, then let me ask you this, in Hot Springs and Garland County,
what percentage of your drinking water comes from that plant right below the dam on the Ouachita River? Of our 20 million
Speaker 193
1:09:25
gallons, approximately on about 3.5 million come from another plant. Almost all of it comes from the Ouachita plant. So 17 million comes from the Ouachita River. That is
Speaker 195
1:09:37
correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:09:48
Representative Letting, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's my understanding that not all water systems are specific to a county. A county might be pulling in water from systems outside the county. So how could we feasibly exempt one county from this if they're getting water from neighboring areas?
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:10:07
Well, with this amendment, that's not the case. I don't know about future other amendments, but that's not the case with this amendment.
All right. Seeing no other questions, committee, what's your pleasure on
this amendment? Representative Hyde. We have one last question. You're
Speaker 18
1:10:33
recognized, sir. Representative Vying, I'm trying to make sure I understand this. you're saying that none of the
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:10:39
water districts, I guess two questions. First is how many water districts are there within Garland County?
To my understanding, there are two others besides three total canning Hot Springs. So there's at least three? Yes. And none of those sell water outside the
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:11:01
county line? I'm not certain on the other two.
Speaker 177
1:11:04
Hot Springs Village would include both Saline and Garland County. North Garland County Water District, I believe, is just within Garland County, and then Kimsey Water District is also in Hot Springs County.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:11:19
Okay, so it's not just really county-specific. It's different.
Speaker 206
1:11:22
There are raw water sources at a different location than ours. So is
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:11:28
the distribution separated by the county line? Hot
Speaker 189
1:11:34
Springs Municipal System only serves in Garland County right but you
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:11:37
have other municipal or other water districts or water distributing entities I guess maybe I can say that do cross the county lines I believe two of them do yes well and I'm not
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:11:49
sure of the size they may not
fall into the 5,000 I'm not sure of the size on those users they may not be affected due to the size
Speaker 18
1:11:59
of the water system okay Well, I guess there's not enough time to check on the size and really be certain about some of that, is there? Okay, that's all.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, I still think, seeing no further questions, what's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Malone, you're recognized. Motion due pass.
We have a motion due pass on the amendment number one to Senate Bill 359. Anyone want to speak against the motion? Anyone want to speak for the motion? All in favor of the amendment to Senate Bill 359, indicate by saying aye. All opposed? Indicate by saying no. Representative Devine, your amendment failed.
Appreciate the committee's time. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, I believe that brings us then to the public comment, continue
on with the public comment part of our time, and we have people signed up to speak for the bill, and the first one
Speaker 10
1:13:20
on the list to speak for the bill is Dr. John Bates. Okay. So, Rozzie Smith, are you in
the room? Are you scheduled to speak for the bill? Yes. And Dr. Moreland, join you at the table? All right, go ahead and sit at the end of the table and introduce yourselves for the record, please, and proceed.
Speaker 213
1:13:50
Ms. Smith, you are recognized. Introduce
yourself for the record, and then Dr. Morlidge, you too, please. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Speaker 214
1:14:03
I'm Rozzie Smith. I'm with Arkansas Children's Hospital. My boss was here earlier, Dr. Jonathan Bates, who's president and CEO of the hospital, but he had to make a speech at 1130, so he had to peel out a sad substitute, but here I am. Children's Hospital supports this bill strongly.
We have in the past. It improves children's health. It improves their oral health and every other part of their health ramifications from it. And also I want to mention that Academy of Pediatrics, who are unable to be here, too, as a pediatrician, he was going to represent both of them,
Speaker 216
1:14:40
but I'm the one. Okay. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Vice Chair.
Speaker 218
1:14:46
I'm Dr. George Morlidge. I'm an Arkansas licensed dentist. I practice in Little Rock. I have an endodontic practice, been in practice since 1974, and I'm a past president of the
Arkansas State Dental Association. I'm here to speak for Senate Bill 359 and to ask your support for that bill. I support fluoridation because it is an economical, safe, and efficient way to prevent tooth decay. As Senator Johnson has already pointed out, we have a problem with tooth decay in Arkansas. Fluoridation is a method to adjust the naturally occurring amounts of fluoride in our water
to an optimal level to prevent tooth decay. It does not add color, smell, or taste to the water. Also, Dr. Johnson, or pardon me, Senator Johnson, pointed out that 35 to 65 percent of tooth decay can be prevented by this process. As my colleague stated, it is supported by the American Dental Association, the American
Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the last five U.S. Surgeon General. Locally, the Arkansas State Dental Association, the Arkansas Children's Hospital, and our current Surgeon General support this. Arkansans support this bill.
Senator Johnson alluded to the Pew Commission study. This study was performed in January of this year by Salter Mitchell Incorporated. It found that 67% support fluoridated water to additional communities. This study was conducted with a 4.4% margin of error and a 95% confidence level.
I give you those numbers to let you know the efficiency with which this study was performed. Dental health is not just a tooth problem, it's a total body problem. Research has now indicated that dental disease has been linked to heart disease, diabetes, stroke so if we can reduce dental decay we can have an impact on these killers
dental decay won't kill us but these other things can also as a result of this the cost of health care in our state to individuals and their families and to government-subsidized plans, namely Medicare, are skyrocketing. As Senator Johnson said, tooth decay is the most common childhood illness, and he alluded to the fact that children lose over 50 million school hours each year because of dental disease.
disease, he did not mention that adults, employed adults, lose over 150 million work hours because of dentally related disease. At present in Arkansas, approximately 1.7 million residents enjoy the benefit of fluoridated water. The passage of this bill will allow another 640,000 deserving Arkansans to have the gift
of fluoridation. As a dental practitioner, I have seen and I have been told many, many, many times over the years, there is no pain like a toothache. is a safe, economical, efficient way to significantly reduce that pain and torment. Thank you.
You're finished with your testimony. Would you take a couple of
questions? Yes, ma'am. I'd be happy to. Representative Smith, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I go back to one of my questions earlier. On
line 32, page 1, I was led to believe that the 5,000 meant 5,000 customers, not headcount. How are you going to maintain a cap on that when someone has a new child or a family member moves in? I can see a lot of problems with that.
Do you not agree? Isn't that going to be hard to
Speaker 224
1:20:04
monitor? No, sir. I think that would be a
non-issue. How could you say that? If 5,000 is the limit and anything over 5,000 persons, then he's required to have fluoridation. I see that as a problem for rural water systems. Don't you
Speaker 218
1:20:17
agree? There is a significant difference between the 1,000 that Senator Johnson talked about originally and the 5,000. So you're going to have to have a lot of babies to have 5,000. But you're getting it out of what I'm talking about.
This is currently showing 5,000 persons. I'm not talking about that larger birth rate increase. I'm just saying, how could you monitor that? And I feel like that I got the wrong information. I thought you said it was 5,000 households, but that's not what the bill says. No, sir, I have
Speaker 218
1:20:48
not made any comment to that whatsoever, but I would be happy to let Senator Johnson or the Department of Health respond
Speaker 230
1:20:55
to that if they would like to. Well, I didn't mean
Speaker 228
1:20:59
it was you that stated that. I apologize.
But I did get information from sources
before I got in this room today that it was going to be 5,000 households. Senator, can you
Speaker 232
1:21:10
address that question? Thank you, Representative Smith. I mentioned I answered this a while ago, and
Speaker 107
1:21:15
I said it was a 5,000 head count. Right. Total population. Is that right? Yes. Well, how are
you going to monitor that? Populations shift. People move around. How are you going to know if I've got 5,005 customers or 5,005 persons on a water system or if I've got 4,973?
Speaker 102
1:21:35
The Department of Health, which will be doing this, of
Speaker 232
1:21:39
course, they use census numbers. It's not just every 10 years that those census numbers attract total population. Right. They're done periodically throughout the decade.
Right, but I guess what I'm getting is that for my rural water systems, this could be cost prohibitive. Well, there's
Speaker 232
1:21:53
going to be no requirement for the water systems to go out and take a population count. That's going to be secondary data coming from the U.S. Census Bureau managed by the Department of Health. Which is every 10 years.
It's not every 10 years. Well, that's when we get new census data. That's when the big census is completed, but there are population measurements taken throughout the decade. Well, okay,
Speaker 18
1:22:17
but I guess my point is I would be happier with
this dating 5,000 customers, household customers is what I would consider, instead of 5,000 noses to count. And that may be being facetious, but I just think that's – if that's the trigger, I've got a
Speaker 107
1:22:34
little problem with that. Is your problem some administrative problem for the water system?
That's part of it, but it's also a cost factor for the rural water systems. If they're going to have to buy this chemical, even if you put in the mechanics to allow it to happen, they're still obligated for the chemical, and that's where I'm getting my e-mails and my
Speaker 232
1:22:54
phone calls. Right. Well, and my only response would be that, of course, the data shows that the cost for the fluoride per head is not going to be any more than 50 cents a person. Right. The numbers I talked about, the savings for children alone is going to be in Arkansas $20 per year per child.
Right. And if it were my money, and I could put
Speaker 236
1:23:14
my money in that kind of investment,
I'd be putting my money right there. I can't argue with that. But I'm just asking, I'm just trying to make a statement here that, you
Speaker 218
1:23:28
know, and maybe I'm beating a dead horse. I don't know. But thank you. Thank you, Senator. Excuse me. Representative, I might also respond when we talk about cost that the CDC has stated that for every $1 spent in fluoridating water, that $38 in unnecessary dental cost is saved.
The Journal of Public Dentistry has also stated that the cost, the national cost per average of one dental filling, which is $145, is more than twice the cost of what it would take to supply an individual with fluoridated water for a lifetime. So you can see there are tremendous cost savings. Well, I'm not arguing that, and I guess I'm kind
of trying to straddle the fence here,
but it does prevent expenses later on in life, and I like to see people with a full set of teeth instead of a gappy smile, and I understand that. But I guess I'm just talking about that trigger there. That's kind of giving me a little trouble. My arm's been twisted by several people. then I'll probably vote for this thing. But I think this needs to be talked about. And maybe an amendment might be proper here. You've already changed from 1,000 to 5,000. Should we not
Speaker 237
1:24:44
up it a little bit until we can get something going?
I'm just making comments. Thank you again. I
appreciate it. Representative Gaskell, you're recognized.
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
1:25:01
Dr. Little Rock, the only place you practice?
Speaker 218
1:25:05
Well, I did practice in Texas when I was in endodontic training. You know,
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
1:25:10
sitting here listening to you, I was thinking in the past few years, we know that children's deciduous teeth, we used to think that the abscess of one of them
was just nothing but remove it until we found out that they're called valvular vegetation in the heart and will cause a heart murmur. Yes, sir. And I was just wondering, we need to approach that better. You know, I think there's nothing any more sad, and I'll speak from personal experience, and then I'll get out of here, to go into a community and see a 17-year-old girl that you can't save a dad-blamed tooth in her head, and she's just now erupting her third molar, and she winds up with a denture at 17 years of age.
Speaker 241
1:25:52
Shouldn't that tell us something? I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Rossi, Dr. Morlidge, we appreciate your testimony. And now to speak against the bill, I
believe next on our list is Mr. John Lavelle. If you will take your place at the end of the table, introduce yourself for the record.
Welcome sir, if you'll make sure your mic is on and that you're speaking close to the the
Speaker 243
1:26:39
MR. Okay. All right. Got it. Okay. Madam Chairman and members of the committee here, I'm John LaBelle. I'm from Fort Smith, Arkansas, and I came here to speak to you and try and cut through some of what I see as a little confusion here. I have heard nothing mentioned about this yet, about the chemicals that would be added
to the water. I'd just like to give you a quick, simple example. All of us are familiar with table salt, which is simply sodium chloride. And if you take that table salt and you split it in two, and you put sodium on one side and you put chlorine on the other, you end up with chlorine, as you well know, as a deadly gas and you end up with sodium on the other side, which is a highly reactive metal that will almost explode upon contact with water. You consume it and you die. You essentially
have two deadly substances that when you combine them, you get something that's life-giving. You can take that same sodium chloride and kick the sodium out of there and add hydrogen And you come up with HCl, hydrochloric acid, which is also a deadly poison. And you've been told that these industrial sources of sodium will substitute for the natural, I'm sorry, the industrial sources of fluoride will substitute for the natural substance calcium fluoride.
So that the tin fluoride, one of the compounds that would be used, is essentially the same as the calcium fluoride. That is not the case. I unequivocally say that those who are proposing this from the industrial end, which work through the dental associations, know this. They have the high-dollar chemists who are well aware of this. And just as years ago, the tobacco industry pulled the same thing off,
Speaker 244
1:28:41
misleading the public, they lied all the way to the Supreme Court. I rest my
case I thank you for your time mr. Lavelle thank you for your testimony we appreciate you being here next to speak for the bill is mr. Ed Choate if you will take your place at the end of the table introduce yourself and whom you represent for the record please and then you may proceed good
Speaker 246
1:29:11
Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Vice Chair,
members of the committee. Will you make sure
Ed Choate
Unverified
1:29:16
you have your mic on, please? If the green light's on, is it on? There you go. Just a little closer. I'll start again. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Ed Choate. I'm President and CEO of Delta Dental of Arkansas. As our state's leading provider of dental benefits, our company is completely committed to improving or fulfilling our mission, which is to improve the oral health of Arkansans. We believe very strongly in water fluoridation and the reduction in dental disease that results.
In support of Senate Bill 359, we are committing $500,000, as has been discussed already, to offset the upfront capital cost of fluoridation equipment for the communities that are affected by this bill. The reason that we're doing that is simple. We have concerns that many of these communities simply would not be able to take advantage of this very important health-improving initiative without this financial help. So we want to be there to offset those costs completely. Funding for the fluoridation equipment and its installation will be offered to all 32
community water districts serving 5,000 or more customers and not meeting the recommended standards for fluoridation. These funds will be made available through our foundation. Representative Ward, to answer your question, the process for this will be very simple and straightforward we'll contact all 32 of the community water districts make them aware of this funding that's available provide them a very simple and straightforward grant review excuse me grant request form for them to complete we will form a committee made up of water experts and engineers who will
help us to evaluate those requests and the purpose of this is not to be constraining at all it's to improve the process to make sure that the equipment is right for that community, that the processes are correct, that the pricing is taking advantage of the best that's available in the marketplace. In other words, we want to have experts to help us to make sure that this initiative is done as cost effectively and efficiently as possible. So that's the process. Thank you very much for this opportunity to address the committee. We ask that you vote in favor of this, and I would be glad to answer any questions that
Chair
Unverified
1:31:22
you may have. Thank you, Mr. Choate. Representative Smith, you're
recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Quick question. with the money flow for these 32 communities immediately like in after we pass the bill yes as
Ed Choate
Unverified
1:31:34
soon as we receive the grant request they will be and put the committee together we will begin reviewing them and providing the funding
i mean that's not immediately so how long is that 90
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:31:43
days 120 days july 1st or september the 30th fair comment 60 days thank you thank you
Speaker 49
1:31:50
man representative malone you're recognized thank you madam chair um did you say the donation
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:31:57
So earlier when he said that it was going to cost $90,000 to $100,000 to set up, and we have 32 water communities, so somebody's going to not get it, and the city's going to pick up the cost. Actually,
Ed Choate
Unverified
1:32:13
that's not the intent at all. It's a great question. The question was specific to Fort Smith, which is one of the larger water communities. The way it's been explained to me by the engineers at the Arkansas Health Department Department is they've looked at each of the 32 community water districts that are involved,
and they've determined the number of water intake ports that are necessary to inject the fluoride into the water system. And there's a cost for purchase and installation of each one of those. And so they've determined by that process what the cost would be to purchase and install those systems in each of those 32 areas, and told us that it's $500,000. I will commit to you now, if it's more than $500,000, we will pay it. Have you put anything
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:32:58
in writing that you will pick up the cost and then it goes to
Ed Choate
Unverified
1:33:03
$500,000? It is – that's an excellent question. We have put in writing the $500,000, and I would be glad to amend that letter. Okay. Thank you. And may I also say that there was a mention of other communities, smaller communities, that might also want to floridate their water supplies? We would welcome their grant requests as well.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Choate. I don't see any other
questions for you. I appreciate you being here and your testimony. All right, signed up to speak against the bill, and I'm having a little difficulty with the handwriting,
but I think it's John Bruce with Western Auto in Fort Smith.
Mr. Bruce, are you here? Is it? Oh, okay. Thank
you, sir. Did I interpret your name correctly? Yes, you did, but I want
Speaker 254
1:33:52
to give my time to Dr. Ginger Johnson. All right, you
may do that. Dr. Johnson, take your place at the table and introduce yourself and whom you represent, please.
Ginger Johnson
Unverified
1:34:09
My name is Dr. Ginger Johnson, and I'm nervous as I can be, so I'm sorry. That's all right. We all get that way. I represent my daughter. Her name is Alexandra Lane Johnson. She was born with hypothyroidism. I have done many years of research. Fluoride is to her thyroid, like alcohol is to a liver. Meth is to your brain. Fluoride will destroy this child. I go to great lengths to keep fluoride away from her, okay?
We have a reverse osmosis system in our home to try to protect this baby's thyroid. Now, I'm sorry I'm real emotional about this because this affects my children. And I want you to know I just got back from Kenya on Saturday. I'm still on Kenya time. but when we drive up to a school over there and you see thousands of kids come up with their big beautiful white smiles you cannot tell me the only reason that they have beautiful white smiles
is because they get fluoride they don't get fluoride I've been over here for two weeks watching people try to get clean water and here I sit begging for clean water in America It is beyond me why we would want to put stuff in water that destroys our bodies. Now, I've got something right here that says, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged many of the leading dental researchers
that the mechanism of fluoride's benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. Dr. Johnson, I
want to interrupt you just a second. We want your testimony and not reading testimony that others have written, so
Ginger Johnson
Unverified
1:36:06
if you'll speak for me. I have absolutely no problem with topical fluoride. We have several venues in this state to provide topical fluoride to children in this state.
The Ronald McDonald House has two mobile units that Delta Dental has provided. Arkansas Children's Hospital has a mobile dental unit. We have plenty of venues to get topical fluoride to our children. There's no reason to ingest this into our body. Furthermore, if people want to choose to ingest it systemically, that's fine, that should be their choice. But when someone is telling me that I have to give this to my daughter, and you don't
understand the pituitary gland releases thyroid stimulating hormone TSH and fluoride mimics TSH in the brain so the thyroid begins to think I have plenty of T4 I have plenty of T4 so it doesn't produce any and the thyroid gland gets larger and larger and larger and you know it's just it's not right to put this in our body systemically and i don't know if you guys know but synthroid which
treats hypothyroidism is the number two drug prescribed in america today and it's interesting to me as i've been looking at the women in this room i would suspect there are several of you who are taking synthroid this morning before your first meal if you look around the room and look at these ladies necks in here, the thickness of their neck indicates that they probably have a sluggish thyroid. And a lot of that could be from the fluoride that they're receiving.
So I understand I have got porcelain veneers on my teeth. I love beautiful teeth. My children have had braces. I am all about beautiful teeth. But this issue is not about tooth decay. is about the pathophysiology of the pituitary in our thyroid gland and no one has spoke to that. And I think that it would behoove each and every one of you who is going to make a decision on this committee to educate yourself on the pathophysiology of the pituitary
and the thyroid mechanism. You look around the room at these women, look at their necks and look at their body structure. There's something going on. Okay? And my daughter has to take Synthroid every single day and I do not want to have to continue to fight this systemically in her body so I appreciate your time I'm very emotional about this because it is a fight every day in my home to try to keep fluoride away from my child I appreciate your willingness to give it to yourself
or do it to your kids but please don't force me to have to give it to my
Speaker 256
1:39:10
child and I welcome any questions and I'm sorry I'm so nervous Dr. Johnson, thank you so much for
Ginger Johnson
Unverified
1:39:20
being here. We appreciate your testimony. And y'all look at my baby one more time. She's beautiful. Her TSH level was 966. It should be less than 10. This
Speaker 256
1:39:28
is a battle she will fight until she dies. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Best of luck to you.
Speaking for the bill, we have Dr. Tommy Roebuck signed up to speak for the bill.
Speaker 265
1:39:53
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee members. We had one example. Robach, we all know you, but would you please introduce
yourself for the record? Gosh, as many times as I've done this, I should know, Representative Tyler.
Tommy Robach
Unverified
1:40:06
My name is Dr. Tommy Robach. I practiced dentistry in Arkadelphia for 37 years, and I saw firsthand the benefits of dental fluoridosis, fluoride. The reason I did that is because I did dental exams on Head Start kids for many, many years. I had the opportunity to see anywhere from 60 to 80 students and do their dental exam at one time.
I could compare those kids that lived in Arkadelphia that fluoridated the water system there in 1953. I could compare those with fluoridated water and those that lived just outside of the city there that did not have fluoridated water. All you had to do was look in their mouth, and you could tell whether they had the advantage of fluoridated water or not. If you saw a child with two, three, four cavities, that child had no fluoridated water.
A child that lived in Arkadelphia, if you had one cavity, it was unusual. Most of them by far had no cavities. So there's no question in my mind, and I promise you that every dentist in Arkansas that has had the opportunity to compare the two like I did for all those years for thousands of kids, they would tell you the same thing. There is absolutely research, critical research overwhelmingly that supports fluoridated water.
There's no question about it. And let's think, I don't have any proof, but I can promise you that there are over a hundred kids that did not sleep much last night because they had pain from a dental cavity. I can also promise you that if they went to school this morning, they're not learning anything today. Dental fluoride, water fluoridation will help tremendously the number of kids that will
not have to suffer the pain from dental decay. And I could go on, Madam Chair, members, for a long time, but believe me, water fluoridation is extremely beneficial to everyone in Arkansas for your constituents, especially the children. So keep that in mind, and I urge you to support water fluoridation because, believe me, after
practicing 37 years, it does make a difference. Thank
Speaker 270
1:43:04
you, committee, and thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Roebuck, thank you for your testimony. We
have Representative Ward, did you have a question? Dr. Rubick, will you take a
question, please? I'm glad to. Representative Ward,
Representative Ward
Unverified
1:43:27
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. A testimony earlier stated that all water, even bottled water, have a certain amount
Speaker 273
1:43:38
Is that true? A lot of bottled water does not have. You can
Tommy Robach
Unverified
1:43:44
get water that has bottled water that has fluoride in it. And every water system has some fluoride in it and what this bill is doing is just raising that to the optimum amount that is beneficial to prevent dead or decay. Now as far as bottled water is concerned there are so many different ones whether it has
fluoride or not. I do know that there's not any system that I know of, Dr. Madden may allude on this, can take fluoride out of the water that's in that system already. And we had a stretch and there are millions of people in the United States that are drinking water today that has more fluoride in their water naturally that they really need. And for years there was an area around Gurdon, Oklahoma up there where I am that had too
much water. But over the years that has reduced, and I don't know what it is now. It's easy to check. Just call the health department. And I don't know whether that answered your question or not. I don't know there's so many different waters, bottled waters, but I do know a lot of people drink a lot more bottled
water than we used to, too. Thank you, Dr. Roebuck. Thank you. Next on our list to speak against the bill is Perry Ambrose with Citizens of Arkansas.
Mr. Ambrose, if you will take your place at the table. Alright, I don't see Mr. Ambrose here, so next on the list is James Presley. Are you
Speaker 275
1:45:40
here please, sir? Mr. Presley, if you will take your place
at the end of the table
and the staff will bring those up. We'll take a look at them. I'm not sure we'll be able to put them in the committee's hands. We'll talk about that in a minute. Mr. Amber, would you please have a seat and turn on your mic and introduce yourself first
and then I'll recognize you in just one minute
Speaker 277
1:46:10
Alright This has the green light, I presume it's on
Mr. Presley, we'll make these available to the members
at their desk, but you should go ahead and proceed because we are under a limited debate.
Speaker 279
1:46:38
All right. First, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to
Speaker 280
1:46:43
you today on this very important issue. I'm James Presley, representing Friends United for a Safe Environment, FUSE, based in Texarkana. I'm an author of eight non-fiction books, half of which are a collaboration with MDs
on health issues. For my PhD degree, I specialized for the doctorate dissertation in the history of medicine, and I wrote a two-volume dissertation on the history of diabetes in the United States. Now we recognize that other people have different issues with fluoridation than we do as an environmental group. We respect that. Ours is science based and strictly we believe follow
the science. Now today I have not heard one word about this very important. It's the only comprehensive independent study of fluoride commissioned by the government, by the EPA, And it came out in March of 2006, five years ago this month. It's called Fluoride and Drinking Water, a Scientific Review of EPA Standards. Now contrary to what some testimony was given earlier, the EPA has not made a final revision.
They have not set this at this time. They're still reviewing it. And there's one comment in this very important. In fact, every member of this committee should acquaint himself or herself with the contents of this before proceeding further because this is a very comprehensive review with 1100 citations, medical and scientific. And there's a lot of issues. Issue after issue was taken up and there have been no studies.
There have been no studies, as a matter of fact, in the chemical that goes into 80% of perhaps 90% of the water systems in the United States are fluoridated. These are the silico fluorides which come as fertilizer plant byproducts, toxic waste from fertilizer plants. They're the sodium fluoride that comes from aluminum plant byproducts. Now, most of the silica fluorides come from Florida fertilizer, phosphate fertilizer plants.
But in recent years, because of the hurricanes that have hit Florida, it's damaged some of these and they've been working, having less to sell to cities. So where is it coming from? Some of it's coming from China. Some of it's coming from Japan. Some of it's coming from Mexico. They're sending their toxic waste to our country to put in our water. Now, this is a bizarre import balance.
I want to make one on these documents I passed around. And there's so much covered that's been touched on the scientific literature that I'd be talking all day if I went into each of them. So I'm just hitting the high spots. First, the fluoride used that comes from the hazardous waste is a certified poison.
Now, a poison is a poison I don't care how much you dilute it. Lead, which is not quite as toxic as fluoride, is banned. You could not have in your water the amount of lead that some cities are putting in their fluoride now, putting in their water systems now. It's almost as toxic as arsenic, and we know the battle in some communities for getting arsenic out.
Now the chronic and the acute levels are two different things but they follow similar patterns. Now here's one thing that I think every one of us should consider. Even if fluoride had no downside, if we all agree it's good, you put it in the water, in the public water, how do you control the dose? drink different levels of water.
Athletes, diabetics drink more water. Some people drink less. But you've got a one-size-fits-all. And that reminds me of the Greek mythology, the story of Procrustes, if you remember that. Procrustes was a giant who would waylaid and kidnap the innocent, unwary travelers. And he had this bed that he formed to place them in.
And if their legs weren't long enough to fill out the bed, he would stretch them. If they were dangling over the end of it, well, he'd just lop off part of the leg so it would fit. But it seems to me that the issue of water fluoridation is creating a Procrustian solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
The issue between the populations and the states that have poor dental issues and poverty, these are related. Dental decay on a larger basis is related to poverty and there's a lot of issues there. It's a very complicated thing. It's not a simple thing of adding fluoride.
And Arkansas, one testimony this morning said that Arkansas ranks second as the most poverty ridden state. And I think you can relate that to the dental health too. In 2004, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette came out with a story that said in one section in the Little Rock schools had a very serious dental problem among the kids. Now, Little
Rock has been fluoridated since at least the 60s, so why did they have those problems? You see, the earlier speaker was correct when he said that fluoride's effect, if any, is topical. Brush your teeth with it. It's not systemic because they're just a wealth of problems. And this study has shown that it may affect the brain, the bones, as well as
giving fluorose teeth. And that has been admitted to be a problem that does cause dental fluorosis. Now I ask you, which is more important, the kid's teeth or the brains or the bones? Among the elderly, the proponents talk about junk science. This is not junk science. In addition, 14 Nobel Prize winners scientists have put their reputations on the line and
opposed or questioned fluoridation. Not one, not one over the years, this is over a span of time, not one has been for fluoridation. These are the scientists and Nobel Prize is not a junk science prize. Well I think that the, of course the mandating has taken responsibility from the family and giving it to the state. The NRC report says that children are getting
too much fluoride, and especially they were concerned with the teeth, bones, and brains. And they suggested any number of studies. The APA has not yet come out with a final decision on this. And when it will come, we don't know. But I propose to the committee that you hold off on this bill until you are made acquainted with the other facts
and wait at least until the EPA comes back with this decision. Now, so much work has been done to show that there even is disparity in the effects of fluoride on different subsets of the population. The African-American children are affected more, more likely to have dental fluorosis
which can become a marker for more things going on inside, Hispanic children next, and then Caucasians. But they all may be affected depending on their nutrition, their education, and a lot of other things. So much of this has been pushed in the name of poor kids. The poor kids are the least likely to benefit. Here is one thing I would like to leave you with, a lack of logic.
Mother's milk in non-fluoridated areas may contain less than .00 parts per million. But in fluoridated areas, it's 0.0098, over twice as much. The mother's system apparently filters out a lot of fluoride. But in the fluoridated areas, the mother absorbs more to save it from the kid.
This is a chronic situation we're talking about. We're talking about over a lifetime, over years. there is an acute element to it because there have been spills, accidents in which people have been poisoned and even killed. And in the handout I have, one of the latest episodes of the University of Chicago Hospital, they had the people on dialysis, they made a mistake in the filtering of the city water
water, and there's a buildup of fluoride and it killed several and it poisoned the rest of them. Now you can look that up. That's in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It's cited in there. That's why there's so much I didn't want to. There's probably going to be a spate of lawsuits over various parts of the fluoridation problem, and this will be coming forth in the years ahead, from what I understand. But I think that we need to
think about everybody on every part of the body, not just the teeth. And I would leave with you one statement I heard, a definition of democracy, what it should not be. Democracy should not be two wolves and a sheep discussing what to
Speaker 279
1:58:57
have for dinner. I appreciate your attention, and thank you very much.
Dr. Presley, thank you for your testimony. We have how much time left on the against side? About 45 seconds. We have to speak against it for 45 seconds is Ms. Peggy McArthur, Hot Springs City Director. Thank you,
Speaker 284
1:59:29
Madam Chair. I'm City Director Peggy McArthur. I went to school with Dr. James Watson, who discovered DNA.
We do not have the same genetic makeup. It is true, what was just stated by Dr. I believe his name is Presley, that nephrology patients will die as a result of fluoridation. First of all, I think we're confusing hygiene with the use of fluoridation, the systemic use, the forced systemic use of fluoridation.
if you had rheumatic fever Dr. Johnson is it doctor? thank you well I really didn't know I wasn't trying to be facetious ma'am I'll let you finish your one statement but your time is up there are a lot of new faces here there are a lot of new faces around the state the city of Hot Springs voted no you need to listen to the people and until the EPA gives the okay that it does not contribute to brittle bones fractures and I've noticed the
stickers that say I have teeth use fluoride or whatever a lot of people do not have teeth ma'am and thank you very much thank you very much for your testimony people our time has expired senator
Johnson I believe you are ready to close for your bill well madam chair members
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
2:01:11
of the committee thank you very much for your time and all your consideration today the the bill presents
a great opportunity for the state as I mentioned it would decrease tooth decay in children 60% in adults and impressive 35% it would eliminate lost lost hours in school and lost hours at the workplace for adults. And so when Representative Mayberry and I talked about the Balancing Act, even though I value local control, and I hear the arguments about local control, all of those things that would be offered by this bill far outweigh local control to me.
This is not a uniquely local issue. This is a statewide issue, and we are charged for dealing with statewide issues. And we as legislators have several important responsibilities, but two of the greatest of those responsibilities are taking care of the health of the people of our great state and taking care of their pocketbooks. And this bill would answer both of those calls, and I urge you to vote yes. Thank you. Senator Johnson
has a close for his bill. Representative Allen, you're recognized.
Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass on Senate Bill 359. speak against, and we've done that already. Thank you. We have a motion do pass on Senate Bill 359. All in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Ayes have it. Senator
Johnson, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. And we are adjourned for this day.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1317
HB1428
HB1593
HB1594
SB359
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Linda S. Tyler Chair
Unverified
Speaker 10
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 18
John Jarks
Unverified
Speaker 35
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 42
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
Speaker 56
Speaker 63
Representative Garry L. Smith Chair
Unverified
Speaker 67
Speaker 70
Representative James L. Word
Unverified
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 85
Speaker 86
Speaker 88
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
Speaker 93
Speaker 96
Speaker 104
Speaker 102
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
Speaker 101
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 136
Speaker 99
Speaker 116
Speaker 138
Speaker 153
Speaker 156
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
Representative Ward
Unverified
Speaker 162
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 177
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
Speaker 11
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Speaker 189
Speaker 193
Speaker 195
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
Speaker 206
Speaker 213
Speaker 214
Speaker 216
Speaker 218
Speaker 224
Speaker 230
Speaker 228
Speaker 232
Speaker 107
Speaker 236
Speaker 237
Speaker 241
Speaker 192
Speaker 243
Speaker 244
Speaker 246
Ed Choate
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 254
Ginger Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 256
Speaker 265
Tommy Robach
Unverified
Speaker 270
Speaker 273
Speaker 275
Speaker 277
Speaker 279
Speaker 280
Speaker 284