In the words of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare'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. We know how to identify it. We know how to treat it. We know how to eradicate its causes. 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 killed of young children. Subsequently, Senator Kennedy introduced companion legislation in the Senate. Finally, after 2 years of intensive effort, our Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act was signed into law on January 13, 1971, as Public Law 91-695. Title I of this act authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to make grants to units of general local government to assist in developing and carrying out local programs to detect and treat incidents of lead-based paint poisoning. Title II authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to make grants to units of general local government to assist in developing and carrying out programs to identify those areas that present a high risk to the health of resident because of the presence of lead-based paint and then to develop and carry out programs to eliminate the hazards of lead poisoning. And title III directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to develop and carry out a demonstration and research program to determine the nature and extent of the problem of lead-based paint poisoning and to examine methods by which lead-based paint can most effectively be eliminated. In enacting this law, President Nixon committed this Nation to a massive assault to eradicate the blight of childhood lead poisoning. That commitment remains unfulfilled. Much of the reason that lead poisoning continues to be a national peril is that neither the Congress nor the administration has been willing to provide sufficient funding to meet the menace of lead-based paint poisoning. Despite the fact that the Lead-Based Paint Poisoninb Prevention Act authorized $30 million for fiscal years 1971 and 1972, the Nixon administration refused to request any money to fund this act for fiscal 1971 and only after great pressure from myself and other concerned individuals belatedly submitted an amended budget request for $2 million for fiscal vear 1972. Although the Congresswith great credit due to this distinguished subcommittee-recognized the total insufficiency of this request, it provided only $7.5 million in appropriations for fiscal year 1972. That was still woefully inadequate to meet the need. As of yesterday, the Department of HEW's Bureau of Community Environmental Management had received applications for grants or notices of intent to fill applications for grants from some 66 communities. These requests totaled close to $30 million. However, the amounts requested in these applications have been pared down by the local communities from the true need to a level which would have a better chance of being funded, given the small amount of Federal funds available. For instance, I understand that Philadelphia, which originally submitted an application for some $30 million in grants has revised that to some $700,000 in order to facilitate its receiving Federal funding as soon as possible. Yet despite this desperate need for funds and the severity of this dread disease, the administration has requested only $9.5 million to combat lead-based paint poisoning for fiscal year 1973. The appropriation of only this meager amount will mean that hundreds of young children will be neeedlessly subjected to the terrors of lead poisoning. What is most 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 fall victim to this disease. Each year, for example, 800 young children are so severely afflicted by this sickness 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. For each 800 such children, that is a cost of $200 million. And each year another 800 youngsters are added to the toll. What better proof that, even in cold economic terms, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. On the first day of this session of the 92d Congress (January 18) I introduced legislation to extend and expand the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. This 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. I believe that the funding levels provided in this legislation are the basic minimum necessary to mount a meaningful program to combat childhood lead poisoning. And I am pleased to note that 65 Members of the House have joined me in sponsoring this bill. They are: William F. Ryan (New York) Phillip Burton (California) George Collins (Illinois) Ronald V. Dellums (California) Donald Fraser (Minnesota) William Hathaway (Maine) Frank Horton (New York) Parren Mitchell (Maryland) Claude Pepper (Florida) Benjamin Rosenthal (New York) Paul Sarbanes (Maryland) James Symington (Missouri) I believe that both the bipartisan nature and widely differing geographic representation of this list of cosponsors indicates the deep and growing concern throughout the Nation that childhood lead poisoning must be eliminated, and that the Federal Government undertake the necessary financial assistance to lead the way in that effort. The distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing (Mr. Barrett), a cosponsor of the bill, has informed me that his subcommittee will report out this legislation. And just last week, the Senate Subcommittee on Health reported out the companion legislation introduced by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee (Senator Kennedy). And I am pleased to note that the Senate subcommittee amended that legislation to increase the authorization to $100 million for fiscal year 1973 and each year thereafter and to increase the Federal matching share from 75 to 90 percent. Childhood lead poisoning is a national peril, bringing death and affliction to thousands of young children each year. Its continuance is a stain on our national conscience, for there is absolutely no reason for this disease to be allowed to continue. We have the ability to eradicate the menace of lead-based paint poisoning from the face of America. There is no question about that. What must be questioned, however, is our will to do so. We have an obligation to assure that all children in this Nation-all childrenhave the opportunity to grow up in health and decent living conditions. Either we meet that obligation or we fail. It will not fade away by our ignoring it. I urge this subcommittee in the strongest possible terms to provide sufficient funding so that we can eliminate this preventable disease once and for all. Mr. FLOOD. Thank you very much. Mr. MICHEL. No questions. THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1972. HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION WITNESS HON. DONALD M. FRASER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Mr. FLOOD. We will now hear from the Hon. Donald M. Fraser, Representative from the Fifth District of Minnesota. Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My statement is very brief. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am here today to express alarm and concern over the drastic cuts in Hill-Burton and health manpower funds for hospital construction in the administration's proposed 1973 budget. I urge that grants for hospital construction be restored at the very least to the 1972 level and that appropriations for outpatient facilities and rehabiliation facilities be increased. The severe cutbacks in Hill-Burton and health manpower funds will seriously jeopardize construction this summer of a new $40 million Hennepin County General Hospital in Minnesota. Hennepin County General is the only hospital which provides extensive emergency services for the area's 960,000 people. It also maintains a broad outpatient and ambulance service, renal dialysis and a vast educational program; 25 percent of all physicians in the State of Minnesota received part of their education at Hennepin County General Hospital. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has raised $30 million locally and hoped to receive Federal funding to make up the $10 million deficit. The most Hennepin County Hospital can expect from unreleased Hill-Burton 1972 funds and from the administration's proposed 1973 budget is $4 million. This will leave a deficit of $6 million. Because of the great demand nationally for health manpower funds and the administration's requested cuts, Hennepin County has no hope of receiving help from this source unless the appropriation is restored to the 1972 level. If the $6 million deficit cannot be met, completion of the Hennepin County General Hospital will be endangered. Hennepin County General Hospital's facilities now do not meet the licensing standards of the State. The facilities are old and obsolete and do not comply with modern fire prevention codes. Remodeling is not possible to bring the facilities up to required standards. The State has continued the hospital's license on the basis that new facilities will be completed by 1975. If construction is set back in time, the hospital may lose its license and its accerditation as a teaching hospital and be forced to close. This would be a setback of major significance. Hennepin County General Hospital has the highest occupancy rate of any Minneapolis hospital. Interns, medical specialists, and medical students from the University of Minnesota receiving clinical training could not be placed elsewhere. The hospital's educational program would be lost. In addition, at a time when there is a dire need for more health manpower, the cutbacks in health manpower construction funds will slow down plans of the University of Minnesota for expansion of needed medical school classes and other allied health facilities. If funding is not available for educational space, the projected enrollments for health sciences students will be threatened. The President has expressed great concern for better health care delivery, but now the administration has requested severe cutbacks for hospital construction. Instead, the administration plans to hold part of last year's appropriation to allocate during the new fiscal year. Rather than giving aid for the construction of needed hospital facilities, construction grants will be phased out and replaced with interestsubsidies. Minnesota cannot take advantage of interest subsidies because of the limitation on State borrowing. I feel that improvement in health care delivery services is a top priority in our Nation. I hope this committee will seriously consider increasing Hill-Burton and health manpower funds to achieve better health care. Mr. FLOOD. Thank you very much. Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Fraser, you sav Minnesota can't take advantage of the interest subsidy because of limitations on State borrowing. Is there a bonded indebtedness limit of the State that has been reached? Mr. FRASER. I am not familiar with the technical problems, but this is what we have been advised by the people trying to put together the money package. Mr. MICHEL. I might note that when we amended the Hill-Burton Act, we provided for the first time for a combination of grants and interest subsidy in one project, whereas before it was simply the HillBurton money and local matching funds. Mr. FRASER. I think the answer may lie in the fact we have had several votes in our county on providing bonds for a new hospital. The first vote passed and gave the initial grant which makes up the major part of the package. The second vote to increase the amount failed because of the growing taxpayer resistance generally to higher property tax rates. I think the problem may lie in the absence of that kind of an authorization. It is not possible for the county board to take advantage of the Federal program because the loan which is underwritten by the Federal Government with the interest subsidy would simply be another part of the bonded indebtedness which would exceed that which has been authorized. If they had the vote from the people to go to a higher amount, they of course wouldn't have needed either grant money or subsidized loan money. I think that is probably the core of the problem. Mr. MICHEL. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much. |