-2 In the words of HEW's Bureau of Community Environmental Management, what this adds up to is a "disease more prevalent than polio before the advent of the Salk vaccine." But the real tragedy is that childhood lead poisoning is a totally manmade and totally preventable disease. It is not some rare malady waiting for a miracle cure. It exists only because we let it exist. Three years ago I introduced legislation to begin a Federal program to come to grips with this crippler and killer of young children. Subsequently, Senator Kennedy introduced companion legislation in the Senate. Finally, after two years of intensive effort, our Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act was signed into law on January 13, 1971. In enacting this law, President Mixon committed this Nation to a massive assault to eradicate the blight of childhood lead poisoning. That commitment remains unfulfilled. fuch of the reason for this is as simple as it is intolerable: the victims of lead poisoning are the poor and the black youngsters of our inner cities, destined to live in slum housing, without enough to eat, and without adequate medical care. They are America's forgotten children, her invisible children. And the attitude of this Administration toward these youngsters has been one of cruel and callous disregard. This unconscionable neglect can only be m measured in the unnecessary suffering of thousands of young chil dren. This government has been allowed to close its eyes to the plight of these children for far too long. It is imperative that the Congress mandate a comprehensive and meaningful program which will safeguard their health from this dread disease. The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act authorized $30 million for fiscal years 1971 and 1972 to combat childhood lead poisoning. That authorization expires on June 30, 1972. 3. Therefore, on the first day of this session of the Ninety-second Congress, I introduced legislation (H.R. 12466) to extend and expand the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. And I am pleased to note that subsequently Senator Kennedy introduced the companion legislation (S. 3080) which you are considering today. It is my firm belief that the passage of this legislation is an integral part of the program which we must launch to eradicate the blight of lead-based paint poisoning from the face of this country. Sixty-five Members of Congress have joined in sponsoring this bill. Augustus Hawkins (Calif) Frank Horton (NY) Andy Jacobs (Ind) Edward I. Koch (NY) Parren Mitchell (Md) Bertram Podell (NY) Charles B. Rangel (NY) Thomas Rees (Calif) Ogden Reid (NY) Henry Reuss (Wis) Peter W. Rodino Jr. (NJ) Benjamin Rosenthal (NY) Dan Rostenkowski (Ill) Paul Sarbanes (Md) I believe that both the bipartisan nature and widely differing geographic representation of this list of cosponsors indicates the growing awareness throughout this Nation that childhood lead poisoning must be eliminated, and that the Federal government must lead the way in that effort. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS Much of the reason that lead poisoning continues to be a national peril is that neither the Congress nor the Adminis tration has been willing to provide sufficient funding to meet the menace of lead-based paint poisoning. Despite the fact that the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act authorized $30 million for fiscal years 1971 and 1972, the Nixon Administration steadfastly refused to request any money to fund this act for fiscal year 1971 and only after great pressure from myself and other concerned citizens belatedly submitted an amended budget request for $2 million for fiscal year 1972. Although the Congress recognized the total insufficiency of this request, it provided only $7.5 million in appropriations for fiscal year 1972 to meet still woefully inadequate the need. I understand that over 30 communities have filed applications of notice of intent to file applications for grants under Title I and II of the Act totally in excess of $30 million. There Now is the time for the Congress to insure that a higher and more adequate level of funding be provided in the future. fore, our legislation provides that for fiscal year 1973 and for each succeeding fiscal year, there is authorized to be appropriated $20 million for grants to units of general local government to assist in developing and carrying out local detection and treatment programs for victims of childhood lead poisoning; $25 million for grants to develop and carry out programs to identify high-risk areas, and then to develop and carry out lead-based paint elimination programs; and $5 million for the Department of Housing and Urban Development to carry out a demonstration and research program to determine the nature and extent of the problem and the methods by which lead-based paint can most effectively be removed. Any amounts authorized for 1 fiscal year but not appropriated may be appropriated for the succeeding fiscal year. That every penny of these funds is urgently needed is clear. But what is more striking is that if we fail to spend the necessary funds to combat this menace, we will have to expend far more patching up the sins committed against our children by allowing them to -5 fall victim to this horrid disease. Each year, for example, 800 young children are so severely afflicted by this crippler that they require institutionalization and care for the remainder of their lives. It has been estimated that such care costs $250,000 per child for a lifetime of institutionalization. Annually, that is a cost of $200 million. What better proof that, even in cold economic terms, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But let me make one thing clear. It is not enough for the Congress to authorize the amounts in the legislation before you today. It must insure that they are appropriated as well. The Congress has a long and dubious history of making promises but not delivering on them. Despite a $30 million authorization for the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act passed over a year ago, not a single penny has reached the local community to combat this disease. Worn-out slogans and yesterdays promises will not keep our children healthy. They will only result in greater despair and spreading illness. Anything less than the full appropriation of authorized funds can only result in condemning thousands of urban children to lives of suffering and disease. -6 DEFINITION OF LEAD-BASED PAINT Secondly, our legislation would change the definition of lead based paint from paint containing more than 1 percent lead by weight liquid paints or in the dried surface coating to 0.06 percent lead by weight. The matter of a "safe" level of lead in paint has been of deep concern to me for quite some time. On August 9, 1971, five child health advocates joined me in filing a formal petition with the Food and Drug Administration requesting that agency to ban paint with more than minute traces of lead from household - 0.06 percent uses under the authority of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Joining me in submitting this petition were Prof. Joseph A. Page, associate professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Anthony L. Young; Mary Win O'Brien; Journalist Jack Newfield; and Dr. Edmund 0. Rothschild, Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases, New York City. On November 2, 1971, the FDA published our petition in the Federal Register in order to allow interested parties to make their comments known. At the same time, however, the FDA published another merely require that paints with a lead content in excess of 0.5 percent bear a warning label. The overwhelming preponderance of medical and scientific evidence and opinion submitted to the FDA in regard to these proposals support my petition to ban paint with a lead content in excess of 0.06 percent from household uses. Included among the wide range of individuals and organizations who have endorsed my proposal are the Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's Bureau of Community Environmental Management; Jane Lin-Fu, Pediatiric Consultant, Maternal and Child Health Services, HEW; the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the State of New York, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs; and a great number of State and local Health departments across this country. |