opinion of our specialists in this field that the addition of 1.0-1.5 parts per million of fluorine to water supplies produces a beneficial effect upon the oral health of individuals consuming such reconstituted waters. Furthermore, we have been unable to find any scientific evidence which shows that the ingestion of water containing 1.0-1.5 parts per million of available fluorine ions has any deleterious toxicological effect upon the human body. We are much opposed to any action which would deprive the American Indian of the health benefits to be derived from the carefully controlled usage of fluorides in their drinking water. Several of the Territories under the jurisdiction of this Department are considering fluorinating their water supplies, and some have begun the process. The Alaska Board of Health has recognized the benefits of fluorinating drinking water, and has established procedures which must be followed by Alaskan communities which choose to utilize this process. At the present time, there are three communities considering fluorination in Alaska, and completed plans have been received by the board of health for the installation of fluorination equipment at Anchorage, which is the largest city in Alaska. By House Concurrent Resolution No. 64 of the 26th Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, the matter of fluorination of the water supply of Honolulu and Hilo was placed before the board of health of the Territory, the board of water supply in the city and County of Honolulu, and the board of water supply of the County of Hawaii, for their study and report back to the legislature. Comprehensive compilations of source materials, findings, and conclusions have been prepared by these boards, and have been submitted to the Legislature of Hawaii for consideration. In the Virgin Islands, fluorination of water supplies is in the planning stage. At present no fluoride compounds are added to the public or semipublic water supplies in that territory. American Samoa has done nothing about the fluorination of its water supplies, but plans to give the matter consideration because of the high percentage of tooth decay among Samoan children. By The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has taken steps toward the fluorination of its water supply, based on the evidence contained in various scientific literature, and especially on the resolution approved by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers at its annual meeting held in December 1952. Act No. 376 of 1952, the Puerto Rican Legislature appropriated to the aqueduct and sewer authority the sum of $96,000 for the purchase of equipment and materials necessary for the fluorination of the water serviced by the metropolitan aqueduct system. An appropriation in the sum of $165,000 is being requested from the legislature this year for the purchase of equipment and supplies for the fluorination of water in other public water systems. The 6-year economic plan for 1953-54 to 1958-59 calls for appropriations in the sums of $145,000, $169,000, $195,000, $222,000, and $183,000 in successive years for the purchase of equipment and materials for broadening the fluorination program. It is expected that by the year 1958-59, all major public water systems in Puerto Rico will be supplying fluorinated water to consumers. In the administration of the Territories of the United States, a steady policy has been followed of placing the responsibilities of local self-government in the control of the territorial peoples as their political, economic, and social development has warranted. The beneficial result of this policy has been recognized generally. Enactment of H. R. 2341 would be a reversal of this beneficial policy as far as local public health is concerned. All of the Territories have the human resources with the accumulated wisdom, intelligence, and judgment sufficient to enable them to determine matters of local public health. We believe this opinion is substantiated by the manner in which the several Territories are now studying the matter of fluorinating their water supply. It would appear also that to the extent H. R. 2341 purports to control State action concerning local health matters it would be subject to constitutional objections. Such objections are not, of course, within the purview of this Department. Therefore, I recommend that H. R. 2341 be not enacted. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, ORME LEWIS, Acting Secretary of the Interior. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., May 13, 1953. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of Defense for the views of the Department of Defense with respect to H. R. 2341, 83d Congress, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. The Secretary of Defense has delegated to the Department of the Army the responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense thereon. The Department of the Army, on behalf of the Department of Defense, is opposed to the enactment of H. R. 2341 for the reasons set forth below. The bill, H. R. 2341, would prohibit all agencies of the Government of the United States, and all agencies of any State or municipality or other political subdivision of a State, from treating any public water supply with any fluoride compound. Further, it would prohibit the use of such treated water by any hospital, post office, military installation, or other installation or institution owned or operated by or on behalf of any of the aforesaid agencies. The principle of fluorination of certain potable water supplies as a means of preventing dental caries in children has been accepted by the house of delegates of the American Dental Association (October 1950), by the governing council of the American Public Health Association (November 1950), by the Surgeon General, Department of the Army (November 1950), by the American Medical Association (December 1951), by the United States Public Health Service, and by other Federal and State agencies interested in public health. In April 1951, the National Research Council convened an Ad Hoc Committee on Fluorination of Water Supplies to review the evidence on this subject and to prepare an impartial report. Special attention is invited to the conclusions of the report which state in part: "In view of these considerations, the committee recommends that any community which includes a child population of sufficient size, and which obtains its water supply from sources which are free from or are extremely low in fluorides, should consider the practicability and economic feasibility of adjusting the concentration to optimal levels. This adjustment should be in accord with climatic factors and a constant chemical control should be maintained. With proper safeguards, this procedure appears to be harmless." Present medical service policy is against the fluorination of water supplies on military posts because the number of children on a military post is usually very small as compared with the adult population. However, as the controlled studies on this subject are continued, there is increasing evidence that older populations may also benefit from this practice. If this point is proved, then it will be desirable for the Army to fluorinate water at posts where the water is deficient in this chemical. It is the opinion of this Department that, under certain conditions, the fluorination of water supplies is a public health asset and that legislation which would prohibit this practice would be detrimental to the public interests. In this connection, it is to be noted that fluorination of public water supplies has been accomplished in 703 communities with an estimated population of 16,500,000, and that scientific studies in these areas indicate that great benefits in the reduction of dental caries have been derived from the fluorination of water. For the foregoing reasons, the Department of the Army, on behalf of the Department of Defense, recommends that H. R. 2341 be not favorably considered. The Department of the Army is unable to estimate the fiscal effects of the proposed bill. This report has been coordinated among the departments and boards of the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget has been consulted and advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, ROBERT T. STEVENS, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for a report on H. R. 2341, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. The Department does not treat drinking water with fluoride and so far as it is aware it does not make water so treated available to the public. This Department is not in a position to report on this measure because it does not have the requisite technical knowledge necessary to formulate an opinion concerning the propriety of treating drinking water with fluoride. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no objection to the submission of this report to the committee. Sincerely yours, C. R. Hook, Jr., Deputy Postmaster General. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of February 4, 1953, for a report on H. R. 2341, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. The bill would categorically prohibit Federal, State, or local governmental agencies from treating public water supplies with any fluoride compound and from making water so treated available for use by or on behalf of any such agency. No provision is made with regard to the enforcement of these prohibitions. After some years of careful study and observation, including a review of many independent investigations, the Public Health Service of this Department arrived at the conclusion that the adjustment of the fluoride content of public water supplies is a safe, effective, and economical procedure for the partial prevention of tooth decay. The Service is continuing with its own research, with research carried on by grants to independent groups, and in its observation of separate studies being made by others in order to leave no stone unturned in its vigilance to protect the public health and safety of the people of this country. It is the view of this Department that the decision on whether to fluoridate public water supplies should continue to rest with the local communities. We believe that they are entirely competent to make such decisions and that Federal intervention, either to require or to prohibit fluoridation, would not be justifiable. We therefore recommend that H. R. 2341 not be enacted by the Congress. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington 25 D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge your letter of April 20, 1954, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H. R. 2341, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. This bill would make it illegal for Federal, State, or local agencies to treat public water supplies with any fluoride compound and to distribute such water for use by the public. The treatment of water with fluorides has been given extensive study by the Public Health Service and many independent agencies. As a result of these studies the conclusion has been reached that the proper amount of fluoridation of public water supplies is a safe, effective, and economical means for the partial prevention of tooth decay. The principle of fluoridation of potable water supplies as a means of preventing dental caries was endorsed by the house of delegates of the American Dental Association in October 1950, by the governing council of the American Public Health Association in October 1950, by the Surgeon General, Public Health Service in April 1951, and by the American Medical Association in December 1951. Furthermore, the actual adoption of the practice of water fluoridation is, of course, a matter for decision by the local community and should remain so. It is believed that the States are quite competent to make such a decision without Federal intervention. For these reasons, the Bureau of the Budget recommends against the enactment of H. R. 2341. Sincerely yours, DONALD R. BELCHER, The CHAIRMAN. We are beginning hearings this morning on H. R. 2341, a bill which would prohibit the United States Government, the government of the District of Columbia, every State, and every municipality, or other political subdivision of a State, from treating any public water supply with any fluoride compound, or from making any water so treated available for general use in any hospital, post office, military installation, or other installation or institution owned or operated by the United States Government, the government of the District of Columbia, and State, and any municipality or other political subdivision of a State. The first witness this morning will be the Honorable Roy W. Wier, a Member of Congress from Minnesota who introduced the bill by request. STATEMENT OF HON. ROY W. WIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as the sponsor of this bill, which was introduced a little over a year ago, my role here this morning and my participation will be very limited, because I know that there are 2 or 3 scheduled to be heard this morning who are very anxious to be heard so that they may get away to attend to other tasks. I am a layman in this field, but the introduction of this bill has been of great interest and concern to me. This is a very controversial bill. I want to assure the committtee of that. During my 6 years here, Mr. Chairman, I have received more mail and communications and material for the bill now before you than on any other subject or issue pending in the Congress during those 6 years. I was tempted this morning to bring over the file of communications that I have received from all corners of this Nation, from people of many walks of life, many conscientious and sincere people; likewise, many people who have spent a long time in the field of medicine. I have proponents for this bill coming from the medical profession; the dental profession; the chemical profession; the engi neering profession; and those professions related to this subject. It is not one-sided by any stretch of the imagination, as I think will be brought out here during the process of your hearings. My introduction of this legislation was prompted by a limited number of people in my own community, and then further impetus was given to the controversial nature and justification for this bill when I came to Washington 2 years ago and met with a number of people here in the District who have been in this field for some time. I have been working with a committee in the District of Columbia headed by a Miss Vera Adams, president, and Mr. Claude Palmer, a member of the board of directors. The committee is known as the National Committee Against Fluoridation. They have been advising with me, giving me considerable information, and lending their support to this cause. With all of this information and contacts and my own thinking through, if I could lend any point in my observations as a result of my experience in the past year, I would advise the committee that in my opinion I would feel that the Federal Public Health Service has got a little overzealous in this field and has gone overboard, because this is something that is not to be decided within a period of a month or a year. The results from a long study and research, documented evidence, will be presented to the committee this morning, and in the interest of the American people, I would feel that the Federal Government-and I say Federal Government because here a Federal agency seems to be the center of the sponsorship of fluoridation, and so my criticism would be leveled at the lack of caution with which that agency has moved in this field. I think that will be covered likewise. Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Ford has to get to Jacksonville, Fla., as soon as he can, and I do not want to take too much time, because you have a long list of very capable and very professional people here. I want to take this occasion, Mr. Chairman, to thank you and the members of the committee, for affording these thousands and thousands of people in the United States an opportunity to be heard and to offer to your committee and the Congress their views, their reactions, and their findings on this most important question of the health of the American people. With that I will close. I will go to my own committee now on the physically handicapped, and again thank you in behalf of all these thousands of people. Before I leave I want to introduce to you the sponsors of this meeting who will take over, and from the proponents' side they have given you a list of the speakers that have been invited to appear here, both as to who they are and as to the position in which they will speak. We would like the proponents to have the first half of the time. The CHAIRMAN. We shall have to determine our procedure. It is our intention to hear the proponents this morning. We may hear some of them this afternoon. We want to make certain that both sides have an opportunity to be heard. We do not know what the situation will be with respect to the House floor, and for that reason I want to make certain that the people who have come a long distance will have an opportunity to be heard. Mr. WIER. That is right, and they paid their own way. I want to introduce the people who will manage the proponents' side of this legislation. First, there is Miss Vera Adams, representing the National Committee Against Fluoridation. Then there is Mr. Claude Palmer, one of the members of the board sof directors of the District of Columbia Committee Against Fluoridaetion, who will rather bear the burden of the management of the proponents of this legislation before the committee. |