[Senate Hearing 112-973]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-973
THE LATEST SCIENCE ON LEAD'S IMPACTS ON CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT AND
PUBLIC HEALTH
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 12, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-057PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 12, 2012
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 3
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 34
WITNESSES
Portier, Christopher J., Ph.D., Director, National Center for
Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Vandenberg, John, Director, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
THE LATEST SCIENCE ON LEAD'S IMPACTS ON CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT AND
PUBLIC HEALTH
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(Chairman of the full Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, Cardin, Whitehouse,
and Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Welcome. Today's hearing on the threat posed
by lead provides a clear example of just how important the EPA
is to protecting public health and keeping our children and our
families safe from dangerous pollutants. The hearing will show
why those who question the need for EPA are ignoring the facts.
EPA's mission is to reduce pollution in the air we breathe and
the water we drink.
One of the most dangerous pollutants that EPA works to
protect us from is lead. Lead is a toxic heavy metal that
threatens people's health and affects almost every organ in the
human body. Children are particularly vulnerable to lead
exposure, because they are still growing and developing. Today
we are going to review the latest scientific understanding
about the threat posed by lead in the environment, especially
to children.
Although great progress has been made in addressing lead in
the environment and the serious threat it poses, guidelines
released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this
year have cut in half the level of lead in children's blood
that triggers action. That means that the number of children
requiring attention in accordance with these guidelines is
substantially greater.
The science now makes it clear that no level of lead, no
level of lead in children's blood is safe, and even the
smallest amount of lead exposure can be harmful to kids. Lead
can damage the nervous system, including the brain, which can
lower IQ scores and impede development of reading, writing,
language, and social interaction skills. It can also harm the
cardiovascular system, including the heart and organs that
produce blood.
As we have learned more over time about the damage that
this toxic contaminant can cause, the threshold of lead in
children's blood that requires preventive measures, known as
action level, has gradually been lowered. As I said, now the
CDC says it should be 5, although the safe level--really there
is no safe level, which is something I am going to talk to you
about, because I am confused as to why they say it is 5, when
the science says there is no safe level.
In the 1960s the best available science indicated that
elevated lead levels in children's blood occurred at 16
micrograms per deciliter. The level was lowered to 40 in 1971,
to 30 in 1978, to 25 in 1985 and to 10 in 1991. Over the
decades, we have made progress in reducing levels of lead in
children's blood. From 1976 to 1994 there was a steep decline
in lead levels 10 or higher in children's blood, from 77
percent to 5 percent.
CDC is responsible for setting the blood lead level that
triggers action to prevent further lead exposure in children.
Unfortunately, just as the Federal Government is acknowledging
that more children are at risk, the 2013 budget proposal
effectively cuts funding for CDC programs that address indoor
lead hazards. Despite what is known about the health risks and
efforts to reduce lead exposure, industries are still releasing
millions of pounds of this dangerous metal each year. According
to the EPA, industry released 17.5 million pounds of lead into
the environment in 2010. These ongoing releases continue to
cause pollution.
Our knowledge about the dangers of lead exposure and other
contaminants increases every day. I ask unanimous consent to
submit for the record studies which show an array of damaging
health effects at very low levels of lead exposure. We will put
that into the record.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. While we know we can't eliminate every risk,
when science tells us that a substance, even at very low
levels, can damage children's intellectual development and
physical health, we have a clear responsibility to protect
them. So today, the best available science tells that by
limiting the use of lead, we can reduce levels of toxic
pollution that harm public health and hurt our children. The
serious threat posed by lead, even at low levels, makes it
clear how essential it is for the health and safety of the
American people that EPA take every opportunity to decrease
exposure to this dangerous pollutant.
In our debates that we have in the Senate every day--and I
see it over at the House--there is a huge move to say that EPA
is a bureaucracy that is terrorizing the American people. The
fact is, EPA is carrying out its role to protect the earth, to
protect our water, to protect our children, to protect our
families. And we will continue to make sure that we stand
behind that effort. Because to walk away from it means that we
are hurting our families, and we don't intend to do that.
It is my pleasure to call on someone who is taking the lead
on getting toxins out of the environment, someone who is really
just an amazing role model for every one of us, because the
more he gets a couple more gray hairs--and he has a lot of
hair--the more passionate he becomes about these issues. So it
is my pleasure to call on Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
What exists here as a result of the exposure to lead is
almost a national tragedy in terms of the result that we see
with 500,000 children having dangerous levels of lead in their
body. And it is incredible that we were unable to continue the
funding that the Superfund, in its better days, brought, and
then it took a newspaper story as well as CDC doing its
regular, its normal work.
But here we are. Children exposed to lead, as we all know
here, they can experience delays in their development, lower
IQs, damage to their hearing and other harmful effects. The
reality is that there is no safe level of lead for the body. As
long as we fail to act, we are willingly sacrificing our
children and our country's, many of our children's and our
country's future. The reality is that there is no safe level of
lead for the body. As long as we fail to act, we willingly
participate in the program that exists in these households
where these children are.
Recently, USA Today released a sobering report on lead
contamination that puts this crisis in perspective. It showed
that in one of the towns in my State, the town of Carteret, New
Jersey, a lead smelting plant spewed toxic materials throughout
the neighborhood, blanketed cars and homes, and contaminated
the air and the ground. After the plant closed, in 1986, only
its land was cleaned up. No attention was paid to the
neighboring families whose homes were still contaminated and
whose health remained at serious risk.
And a quarter-century later, soil samples in the
neighboring community still contained dangerous levels of lead
contamination. And it means that over multiple Administrations,
under both parties, we failed to protect these families whose
lives and futures have hung in the balance. And while many are
to blame, the buck has to stop. This continual neglect is a
moral outrage.
To make matters worse, Carteret is just one of 14 New
Jersey communities and 230 across this country with old plants
and lead contamination. Like Carteret, these neighborhoods
throughout America fell victim to pollution, yet many were
never cleaned up or even tested for unsafe levels of lead.
Imagine generations of children growing up, playing in the
shadows of these lead smelting plants and nobody taking the
time to test for contamination until now.
Throughout the nation, the USA Today report shows that lead
contamination has had a devastating impact. Far too many
children have dangerously high levels of lead coursing through
their veins, poisoned in their own play areas, set back
intellectually before they even opened a book.
But I want to be clear. As the report shows, it is obvious
that we could help fix this problem if the EPA had the
resources it needs to fully test and clean up those
contaminated areas. That is why I have introduced the Polluter
Pays Restoration Act, to force polluting industries to foot the
bill for cleaning up hazardous sites. We have to do more to
address the problem of lead contamination. We need more testing
to find which communities are at risk and where neighborhoods
are polluted; we have to clean them up quickly as we can
physically, get on with it.
So thank you to the witnesses, Dr. Portier and Dr.
Vandenberg, for being here today, coming to speak about the
health effects of lead. I hope my colleagues will heed to the
warnings and take actions for our families and children.
Once again, Madam Chairman, I thank you for bringing this
subject to the forefront.
Senator Boxer. Thanks.
I want to say, Senator, that you are so right about the
polluter pays; that is a Superfund bill that you have pending
in the Finance Committee. Here is the thing that is so
important about it. Hazardous waste and solvent recovery is the
No. 1 cause of pollution from lead. So you have addressed the
No. 1 cause. It is a huge problem. And No. 1.
So I think that bill is critical, that the polluter pay to
clean up these hazardous waste sites.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter
from Senator Sherrod Brown on the health threats of lead and
the need to address the serious public health problem of that.
Without objection, we will do that.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. I also ask to enter into the record a
statement by Senator Jack Reed describing the latest science on
lead's impact on the health and development of children and the
need to continue working to eliminate children's exposure to
lead.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. I was going to turn to our witnesses, but I
see that Senator Cardin is here. It would be perfect if he
would give a statement. And for a moment, I am going to hand
the gavel to Senator Lautenberg, because I have a call I have
to return. I will be right back.
Senator, you have 5, 6 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much. I am not going to take
my time, I will put my statement in the record.
But let me first thank our witnesses for being here and
thank the Chairman for conducting this hearing.
I represent the State of Maryland, and in the State of
Maryland we have old, established communities where lead paint
issues have been dominant for a long time, having the impact on
particularly our children.
I have been involved in this issue for many years, when I
was in the State legislature. We have done a lot of things in
Maryland. We have passed some good laws. Our State has taken
pretty aggressive action. We have worked very closely with the
real estate industry, our University of Maryland Law School has
been actively involved, the University of Maryland Hospital has
been involved.
So we put together a pretty effective State program. But we
need the information from the national partner. That is why I
think this hearing is particularly important to get the best
information we have from the witnesses who are here in our
oversight function, so that we can have effective programs.
There is no question that lead affects the ability of
children to develop to their full potential. And the exposures
are still in our community. It is our responsibility to do
everything we can to protect our children. I hope this hearing
will help advance those causes.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin was not received
at time of print.]
Senator Lautenberg [presiding]. Thank you very much,
Senator Cardin.
And now, with our thanks, Dr. Vandenberg and Dr. Portier,
we look forward to hearing your testimony. We can go left to
right, which always seems to be the case.
Dr. Portier, thank you. Take 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. PORTIER, PH.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
AND DISEASE REGISTRY, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND
PREVENTION
Mr. Portier. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer, Ranking
Member Inhofe, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Cardin, and other
distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today.
Since 1991 CDC has stated consistently that there is no
safe blood lead level for children. In recent years, the
science supporting this statement has strengthened
substantially. Children are exposed to lead from a variety of
sources. Some of the more common sources include lead-based
paint in homes built before 1978, lead contaminated dust and
soil, in plumbing, and items containing lead such as toys,
candy, and other products.
Prevention is important to protect children. Because lead
exposure often causes no symptoms, elevated blood lead levels
frequently go unrecognized. Yet lead exposure can affect nearly
every system in the body.
At very low levels, research has shown that the blood lead
levels are associated with reductions in IQ. Children with
blood levels near 5 micrograms per deciliter have a higher
prevalence of poor academic achievement, a higher risk of poor
impulse control, and higher risk of attention deficit disorder.
Additionally, research suggests that blood lead levels in the
range of 6 to 10 micrograms per deciliter are associated with
signs of reduced post-natal growth, delayed puberty in girls,
and decreased hearing and dental caries.
Because of this improved science, CDC requested the
Advisory Committee for Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention form
a work group to evaluate CDC's traditional blood lead level of
concern of 10 micrograms per deciliter. In January 2012 the
Advisory Committee gave the following recommendations. No. 1,
CDC should use the childhood blood lead level reference value
based on the 97.5th percentile of the population blood lead
level in children ages 1 to 5. This value is currently 5
micrograms per deciliter. The reference value should be updated
by CDC every 4 years based on the most recent population-based
blood lead level surveys among children.
CDC agrees with these recommendations. Targeting the
environments of children with the highest blood lead levels
will prevent further exposure and save lives. The term ``blood
lead level of concern'' will no longer be used, as it implies
there is a blood lead level below which there is no concern.
Instead, CDC will use ``blood lead reference value'' to
indicate high exposure and a need for intervention to prevent
additional exposure.
Currently, CDC estimates that over half a million children
aged 1 to 5 have blood lead levels greater than 5 micrograms
per deciliter. African-American children are three times more
likely to have blood lead levels greater than 5 micrograms per
deciliter than are white children, a significant disparity
requiring continued attention.
CDC's environmental health programs help to save lives,
protect people from harmful environmental exposures, and save
money by preventing costly illnesses and disabilities. CDC's
lead program accomplishes its mission by building strong
partnerships with Federal, State, and local agencies and other
organizations and by gathering essential data to inform the
development of activities that help eliminate and control lead
exposure.
CDC has funded State lead poisoning prevention programs
into September 2012, using appropriated dollars from the fiscal
year 2011 budget. In fiscal year 2012 CDC will maintain
critical expertise and analysis at the national level as a
resource for State and localities as mandated by Congress.
I will share one family's story. In 2011 a Connecticut
family said that they were devastated and lost when they found
that their little girl had elevated blood lead levels. Using
funding in part from CDC, the State of Connecticut and local
lead program were able to provide services to the family, hire
a lead abatement contractor, and oversee a prompt and complete
abatement project. The grateful parents wrote back and said,
``Because of all of you, we were able to persevere and make our
home safe for our children.''
CDC remains committed to reaching the Healthy People 2020
goals of eliminating elevated blood lead levels in children.
CDC continues to work with States and local communities and
other Federal partners to maximize our nation's efforts to
control lead sources. Together, we support physicians' and
parents' access to resources they need to safeguard and promote
their children's health and development.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to
you today. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Portier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer [presiding]. Dr. Vandenberg.
STATEMENT OF JOHN VANDENBERG, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Vandenberg. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, and
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify about the latest science on the impact
of lead on children's development and public health. My name is
John Vandenberg, I am the Division Director in EPA's National
Center for Environmental Assessment in the Office of Research
and Development. My division is responsible for identifying and
evaluating the world's scientific literature to create the
integrated science assessment, which I will refer to as the
ISA.
The ISA serves as the scientific foundation for decisions
by the Administrator on retaining or revising the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead. My testimony today will
include a brief review of data on the trends of lead in the air
and in human blood and draft conclusions regarding the health
effects of exposure to lead that EPA has developed in the most
recent draft ISA for lead.
Lead is one of six pollutants for which a National Ambient
Air Quality Standard has been established under the Clean Air
Act. Emissions of lead to the air historically resulted from
the use of lead additives in gasoline. Following the phase-out
of lead additives for on-road gasoline and tightened industrial
standards, emissions of lead to ambient air have declined by
more than two orders of magnitude over the period from 1970 to
2008.
Ambient air concentrations of lead have shown a similar
decline, as have levels of lead in the blood of children and
adults. In 2008 the air quality standard for lead was
strengthened. The level of the standard was lowered by 10-fold
from the 1978 level of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter to .15
micrograms per cubic meter. EPA's decision on the standard was
based on the much expanded health evidence for the effects of
lead on learning on children. The revised standard was
established lead-related health effects, including IQ loss in
children.
The current review of the air quality criteria for lead as
required every 5 years under the Clean Air Act was initiated in
February 2010 with a call for information and subsequent
development of a draft ISA. The current draft of the ISA was
released for public comment and for review by the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee, an independent panel of experts
in February of this year, and we expect to receive their
comments soon. Revisions based on the peer review panel and
public comments will be incorporated into the next draft, and
we anticipate a final document next spring.
Over 2,900 scientific studies were included in the draft
ISA, demonstrating the large body of evidence available on
issues related to lead emissions, ambient concentrations,
exposures, biomarkers, and health and environmental effects. In
the latest draft of the ISA, the EPA conclusions were that
human exposure to lead involves multiple pathways, including
hand to mouth contact or inhalation of lead dust, eating paint
chips, drinking water conveyed through lead pipes, and exposure
to soil which can act as a reservoir for the positive lead
emissions.
The draft ISA organizes, presents and integrates evidence
that is generally consistent with the previous science
assessment that we completed in 2006. Based heavily on effects
on learning and memory in children, the collective body of
evidence continues to provide support for a causal relationship
between lead exposures and effects on the nervous system.
Epidemiologic and toxicological evidence also demonstrate lead
associated increases in behavioral problems, in particular
inattention and impulsivity in children. The biological
plausibility of effects on cognitive function and behavior as
provided by evidence characterizing underlying mechanisms,
including lead induced effects on the developing nervous
system.
Building on the strong body of evidence reviewed in the
previous science assessment, recent studies provide evidence of
an association between long-term lead exposures and
cardiovascular effects in adults. The largest body of evidence
is for associations of lead with increased blood pressure and
hypertension. Other health effects in children are also
reviewed in the draft ISA. For example, the evidence supports
an association of blood lead level with delayed onset of
puberty in both males and females, with asthma and allergy
related immune effects, and with effects on heme synthesis and
red blood cell function in children.
Lead emissions to the air have declined substantially since
1970, with commensurate declines in the concentration of lead
in air and in human blood. Collectively, the substantial body
of evidence reviewed in the draft ISA highlights what we know
about the relationship between lead exposure and effects on the
nervous system, cardiovascular system, as well as red blood
cell function. There is also evidence that lead exposure is
associated with immune, reproductive, developmental, and renal
effects. Research suggests that many of these effects of lead,
including effects on learning and memory, are found in
populations of young children at very low blood lead levels.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy
to answer any questions that you may have at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vandenberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you both.
You both agree now that there is no safe level for lead in
blood, is that correct?
Mr. Portier. Correct.
Mr. Vandenberg. Yes. There is no evidence of a threshold
for effects of lead.
Senator Boxer. So there is no safe level, no matter what it
is? If there is some lead in the blood, it is not a good thing.
Is that right?
Mr. Vandenberg. I believe that is correct.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Well, I mean, I think that is huge news for us. I know that
the science has sort of been leading in that direction since
the 1990s, but I really appreciate your saying this. And anyone
who gets up on the Senate floor and tries to repeal laws that
protect our kids and stop the EPA and the CDC from doing their
work have to know that is not a benign act. That is making sure
that our kids are in danger. So we know that there's no safe
level.
Now, we also know from what I have learned that you can't
reverse some of these problems once they have taken place. Is
that correct, doctors, that you can't really reverse issues
that emerge from lead exposure? Is that correct?
Mr. Portier. Some of the issues, some of the health impacts
from exposure to lead, especially early in life, are not
reversible, others are.
Senator Boxer. OK, so tell me what is not reversible.
Mr. Portier. The changes in IQ appear to travel with you
throughout life. Some of the changes you see related to
decreased academic achievement and increased attention related
issues tend to track with life as well. Then some of the early
exposures, while they don't show problems associated with
problem behaviors right away, later in life they do appear to
show a linkage to problem behaviors.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Do you agree with that, Dr. Vandenberg? So just to sum it
up, once a child has been exposed to lead--and we don't know
exactly the level, because now we are saying there is no safe
level--if they suffer a problem with IQ, diminishment,
decreased academic performance, attention deficit disorder, and
behavioral problems, those things are not reversible.
So that leads me, because I am always trying to get ahead
of a problem, we are behind on this problem, why wouldn't we
say--and I am not asking you that the Government should say
this, but I am asking you your opinion as doctors--that every
child should be tested when they go get a blood test, that they
ought to run a test on the exposure to lead? Would that be
something that is smart? I am not asking you if we should write
a law about it. I am just saying, if I am a grandma or a parent
and I have a beloved kid, why wouldn't I want to know that
information?
Mr. Portier. That is indeed CDC's recommendation. Every
child of the age 1 or 2, we feel, should be tested for lead in
their blood at that age range. If the quantities are found that
are of concern, there is an instrument issue about how long you
can measure, that that child should be followed, that lead in
their homes should be looked for, sources should be identified
and potentially remediated as best as possible.
Senator Boxer. Well, I have to tell you, that is important
for every single parent to understand. Because I know someone
who just had a sense that her son should have been tested.
Nobody suggested it but she said, please test. And found very
high level. It turned out it was dishes in the home. Dishes in
the home.
And I think, I wonder, do you have any notion about how
many parents or pediatricians do routinely test for lead in the
blood?
Mr. Portier. Yes. I am going to get the number not exactly
right, but somewhere around 65 percent of children in the
United States age 1 to 2 are indeed tested for blood lead
levels.
Senator Boxer. Sixty percent are tested.
Mr. Portier. Greater than 50 percent.
Senator Boxer. I thought you said 60. Fifty?
Mr. Portier. Sixty-five percent is my recollection of the
number.
Senator Boxer. Are being tested?
Mr. Portier. Are being tested.
Senator Boxer. Between the ages of 1 and 2?
Mr. Portier. Under the age of 6, let's say. There is some
range there.
Senator Boxer. And is this happening because the doctors
are getting more in tune with this problem? Or is it happening
because the parents are demanding it? What is your sense of
that?
Mr. Portier. Most of it happens because State health
departments are pushing for this.
Senator Boxer. Good.
Mr. Portier. A lot of it happens because CMS is doing this
now, routinely, especially in areas where we know there are
lead exposures of concern.
Senator Boxer. Let me just say, I know California's
environmental protection agency is very concerned about this.
But it seems to me, colleagues, that if a doctor's note and an
exam is required for school, this is something the States
should take up, that they ought to routinely test for lead. Is
that an expensive test, Doctors? Is that an expensive test to
test? If you are running a test, to test for lead in the blood?
Mr. Vandenberg. I don't know.
Mr. Portier. I honestly don't know.
Senator Boxer. Any of my staff know?
All right. If you don't mind getting back to us on that, I
think it is very important.
I will withhold my other questions and turn to Senator
Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you both for the information you
bring here. But it strikes me, and I listened to the Chairman's
questioning, it strikes me that this menace has existed for so
many years now, and the result of the impairing a child's
ability to learn, to study, is part of a national catastrophe.
It is a terrible thing when you think about it. The old adage,
out of sight, out of mind, is really unfortunately a play on
words, a nuance that is not pleasant to hear.
Now, USA Today really sounded the alarm. They found that
more than 230 lead smelter sites had previously been
unidentified. And I had mentioned the one in Carteret, New
Jersey. Soil testing in a community near the Carteret smelter
showed levels more than double that.
Dr. Portier, you suggested even lower levels of lead
exposure are dangerous. Unfortunately, these are lasting
effects. This isn't like something you can treat medically and
say, OK, that is the end of that.
So soil testing, again, more than double what EPA considers
hazardous for children. How quickly--and this should be
addressed to Dr. Vandenberg--how quickly can EPA put an end to
the poisoning that has been happening in a particular
neighborhood?
Mr. Vandenberg. Thank you for your question, Senator
Lautenberg. I can say that EPA is aware of these issues and our
discussions are ongoing. I think it is very important to
recognize that EPA takes the issues very seriously. Public
health concerns are very much part of our mission. So we are
taking this seriously, and we are under discussions to try to
develop programs to address these concerns.
Senator Lautenberg. CDC and EPA play important roles in
protecting the public's right to know about environmental
toxins. Yet it took an investigative report to make the alarm
loud enough on contamination near former lead smelters. What
would you say the principal actions your agencies are taking to
identify other contaminated sites and to spread the word to
local residents about what they can do, what they ought to get
going on to protect their children from this terrible
contamination?
Mr. Vandenberg. Senator, EPA and CDC are currently
coordinating and collaborating significantly on these issues.
We are meeting, we are discussing, and we are developing plans.
This is related to our missions. So EPA's mission is one of
protecting public health and the environment. And again, CDC
and EPA are coordinating this.
One of EPA's key public health priorities is to protect
public health. We are continuing to strengthen our
relationships with State and local agencies as well, which is a
key aspect of how lead in communities can be addressed. So
thank you for your question.
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Portier.
Mr. Portier. In addition to working with EPA on this issue,
we are also working with a number of other partners. We still
continue to work with the State, although our funding to the
States will end at the end of this fiscal year. We continue to
work with them and strive to make sure that they keep whatever
they can of the lead poisoning prevention programs that we have
put in place into the next fiscal year, so that we can continue
to provide maps across the United States of where we see blood
lead levels greater than 5 micrograms per deciliter, and look
for areas where we can focus our efforts.
In addition, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, ATSDR, supports Pediatric Environmental Health
Specialty Units (PEHSUs), 10 of them around the United States,
who provide expertise for pediatricians who are faced with a
case of an environmental exposure in a child and don't know
what to do. They routinely contact our PEHSUs. These PEHSUs,
the pediatric specialty units, also provide medical education
throughout the nation on environmental health issues. And they
will be following up on our change to lead standards and try to
incorporate that into some of the work they do.
We have a number of other partners, non-governmental
organizations, that help us a great deal in getting the word
out on lead.
And if I might take 1 second to correct a statement I made
earlier to Chairman Boxer, it is 60 percent to 65 percent of
children on Medicaid are tested for lead. I do not know the
national number. I would have to get back to you on that.
Senator Lautenberg. Just one last thing, Madam Chairman, if
I might. An observation about, here we stand. This, I will call
it a fire, is smoldering. We stopped the collection of revenues
in 1995, such a long time ago, and here we do know that there
is smoke and danger coming out of these places. And it took
this kind of an exciting piece of news coming in, the press, to
get us activated, as we are now. And I thank each of you and
the agencies that we represent. We just have to give them more
firepower.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cardin, followed by Senators Udall and Whitehouse.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chairman, again, I thank
our witnesses for being here.
I share the concern of Chairman Boxer and Senator
Lautenberg as to the urgency of this issue. We have been
talking about it for a long time, and it is somewhat disturbing
that we still don't quite have a handle on a national policy to
deal with ending lead poisoning in our children.
I am particularly concerned about the fact, Dr. Portier, in
your statement, that African-American children are three times
more at risk than the general population. I think it reflects
the fact that this is not a problem that has been identified in
one discipline. It is not just a health or environmental issue,
it is a housing problem, it is a social problem, it is an
educational problem, it is really a combination of a lot of
different factors that go into trying to have an effective
strategy to deal with it.
Is lead-based paint, or houses painted before--I think 1978
was the cutoff year--is that still the largest source of the
problem today?
Mr. Portier. For children who are below the age of 6 and
have higher blood lead levels, greater than 5 micrograms per
deciliter, predominantly, the No. 1 source of exposure is lead
paint.
Senator Cardin. And I know that there are different
strategies on remedial actions for homes that do have lead-
based paint. Obviously the flaking of the paint, the window
sills are the greatest dangers to children, who tend to put
their mouths on the window sills. Is that still the strategy,
is to do remedial work in the most vulnerable areas, either
flaking paint or where children can get direct sources, rather
than trying to remove all the lead-based paint?
Mr. Portier. We have an excellent partner in HUD looking at
this issue. Where possible, we work very closely with HUD to
actually remediate and remove the lead paint in the first
place, when possible. When those don't happen, then there are a
number of things that we tell parents that they can do to help
reduce the threat to their children. Obviously remove the
flakes, make sure you sweep constantly, you remove it from the
floor. Better yet, use a HEPA filter. Keep your shoes outside,
if at all possible, if you are bringing it in from outside the
yard.
Get your child tested, get the paint on your walls--if you
have a pre-1978 home and you do not know--then get the paint
tested. Some of the environmental programs in States around the
nation will actually do that for you. So there are a number of
things we have available on our Web site that are things to
help a parent.
In addition, many of the State programs will make
recommendations for lead abatement as to where the parents
might find competent help to come in and remove the lead in
their homes.
Senator Cardin. As I said, there are a lot of different
aspects to the problem. There are a lot of families that think
they are safe, and they are not safe. Do we have good
information as to how effective that type of remedial action
that doesn't completely remove the lead-based paint but uses
the more pragmatic approach to deal with the sweeping and the
flaking issue, rather than the complete removal, how effective
that is? Do we have any studies that have been done in that
regard?
Mr. Portier. There are studies that have been done on that.
I would like to get back to you with a more detailed answer to
your question, so I can compare effectively for you abatement
versus prevention of exposure.
Senator Cardin. I wish you would, because, Madam Chairman,
we have been talking about these issues now for the last,
actively, for the last 30 years. We still have a huge problem
that is out there. I think most people figured we would just
wait until the houses sort of fell down and we didn't have the
problem anymore. Obviously, children are still at great risk.
I know that there is an economic issue on the remedial
programs. I understand that. I understand the tradeoffs. I have
talked to a lot of property owners, and I know that there are
issues that have to be addressed here. But we have to get our
children safe. We have been talking about this for a long time.
I would hope we could come up with a more consistent national
strategy for what is expected of parents today to make sure
their children are living in a safe environment and then having
the governmental programs and oversight to make sure that those
options are available to parents today, based upon their
economic needs and based upon the liability issues.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
Let me first thank my colleague, Senator Udall from New
Mexico. I am a little pressed for time, and he has let me skip
ahead of him in order, which is a generous courtesy, but one
very consistent with the way he treats his colleagues. Thank
you, Senator Udall.
As the safe level for lead paint in children's blood
declines now to zero, it means that there are more kids that
require attention for having dangerous lead exposure levels. At
the same time, this will create increased demand for all the
various abatement and treatment programs that are out there. We
are looking at cutting funding to CDC's lead prevention
programs.
Have you done any analysis as to how much of an increase in
the prevention budget might be necessary, basically to stay
even from a public health perspective, now that we know that
the risk is great down to very, very small levels of lead in
the blood? If you don't add money at this point, then clearly
you are going to leave some lead poisoned kids off the table.
Because there are going to be a lot more of them, you have to
reach out to that. Presumably the numbers should be going up.
What is the process that is taking place within the
Administration for identifying what the correct number is to
stay at the existing public health level, given this new data?
Mr. Portier. Senator Whitehouse, that is a question we are
indeed exploring very carefully right now and looking into.
There are a number of aspects associated with lead poisoning
prevention: surveillance, training, screening, and then patient
follow up, patient care, and intervention. We are looking at
all of those, again, with our partners at EPA and HUD
predominantly, to think about how we move forward, given our
joint resources, to do this effectively.
Senator Whitehouse. I think the program is called Healthy
Homes that has come to Rhode Island. I was with them in the
Olneyville neighborhood of Providence a while ago, and they try
to make sure that when they go into say, improve energy
efficiency in homes, they are also looking at lead and mold,
other issues, so that you kind of--it is efficient to do it at
once rather than go back first to re-do the windows for lead,
then to re-do the same windows for energy efficiency and so
forth. So I would commend you to think about that program.
I will take the last of my time to make a comment, which
is, this is an issue that I have been fighting for a long time,
I was the attorney general who sued the lead paint industry for
the damage that they were doing to Rhode Island children, and
literally thousands being poisoned. Through the course of it, I
have paid a lot of attention to this issue. One of the things
that has stood out has been the amount of phony science
generated by the industry with the desire and purpose to
dissemble, to delay, to deny, to mislead.
It is significant that we are here at this hearing finding
out that there is in fact no safe level of lead in blood for
children. But it does recall the many, many, many years
chronicled in books like Denial and Deceit and Merchants of
Doubt that industry scientists have been basically doing their
best to mislead the American public about this danger and
others. A lot of the same people, a lot of the same
organizations were behind trying to convince people that they
shouldn't have to worry about health effects of cigarettes. A
lot of the same organizations and the same scientists are
behind trying to convince people they don't have to worry about
the effects of climate change and carbon pollution.
And it is worth pointing out that once again, the industry
funded phony science has now been completely debunked. But in
the generation that it took to get there, there have been
innumerable children who were poisoned. And the drag and the
delay that the industry caused by not kind of participating in
a helpful way in these issues and instead, just trying to deny
and delay and continue to sell their product and avoid
liability as long as possible has had some really unfortunate
consequences.
But it is a recurring theme that is worth noting. When you
get into these public health issues, whether it is carbon
pollution or lead pollution or tobacco, health consequences
that virtually every time you see many of the same people,
always the same strategies of phony science thrown up to deny,
delay, to create just that aliquot of doubt that will enable
the political arm to prevent thing from happening. There is a
correlation between the scientist trying to create that level
of doubt--however phony it may be--so that that empowers the
political delay apparatus to prevent things from being done to
protect, in this case, the health of tiny children. It is a
regrettable fact of American life right now that this is a
recurring phenomenon. But it is kind of a noteworthy moment to
call it out, now that we have officially decided that there is
no safe level of lead in the blood of children.
I thank the Chairman very much for holding this hearing. I
think it is important. I think it is unfortunate that we don't
seem to have any participation from the Republican side,
because it is everybody's children who are at risk from lead
poisoning.
Senator Boxer. May I take this opportunity, as my friend
leaves for another meeting, to say this, you are a leader. You
are proven leader. President Obama also has worked very hard to
get lead away from kids.
And here is your point that there is a disinformation
campaign. The really tragic consequences of that is that we
have learned today unequivocally that the worst of the impacts
of exposure cannot be reversed. So all of these lies that have
been coming out of industry that this is not a problem have had
terrible impact on so many. At some point we will quantify just
how many.
But I want to thank you for coming today, and also your
colleague put a very good statement in the record, Senator,
your colleague, Senator Reed.
I would like to call on Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. And thank you for
focusing in on this. I think this is a tremendously important
issue.
I want to follow up a little bit with what she just talked
about, the no way to reverse it, and maybe just ask the
question in a little different way.
If we know that a child--you do this blood test, you find
that a child has elevated blood levels, is here anything that
can be done at that point to try to purge the body of the lead
that is in it? Is there research going on in that area? Is this
something that has been looked into?
Mr. Portier. Clinical intervention, there are clinical
interventions for lead poisoning. But those clinical
interventions carry risks as well. So they are only used in the
situation where the child's life is truly at stake.
Senator Udall. What are we talking about, Doctor?
Mr. Portier. Above 45 micrograms per deciliter is the
recommended level at which you begin chelation therapy in
children. I am pretty sure there is additional research on this
area. But I will have to check for you to answer that question
at lower levels.
If the source of the lead is the child's home, and it is
the paint in the home, removing the paint stops that exposure.
And the child's blood lead level then naturally goes down with
time. And that is the benefit to the child, because they are no
longer increasing their blood lead level. So it is sort of like
a vaccination at that point for the lead in the child's body,
and that is the best solution. Prevent the exposure in the
first place. Barring that, stop the exposure when you find it.
Senator Udall. But I would assume the sooner you get it out
of the body, the better off you are.
Dr. Vandenberg, did you want to comment on that?
Mr. Vandenberg. No, I would agree. I think that the key is
to avoid exposure in the first place, and then as a child
grows, the blood levels actually come down. But stopping the
exposure is clearly the key factor there.
Senator Udall. The chelation therapy you are talking about,
you are giving them a chemical or something that helps the body
purge it? Is that what you are suggesting?
Mr. Portier. Exactly. That is indeed what it is.
Senator Udall. What do you give to do that?
Mr. Portier. I used to know. I can get that.
Senator Udall. We will put it in for the record, please.
Let's assume that you are doing that.
You are saying the research shows that only at this highest
level do you do that. But is the research being done when we
find a child with all different levels, if this chelation
therapy might not work? And if you don't know, we can get that
information in the record. I am just interested in, we have
these situations, you find a child with a high level, and if
there is anything we can do to bring that level down so that we
get ourselves in a better situation for the child and for the
family.
Mr. Portier. I will get back to you on the answer to that
question.
[The information was not received at time of print.]
Senator Udall. OK, thank you very much.
Dr. Vandenberg, in your testimony you said in 2008 the EPA
lowered the level of the standard, the level of the standard
10-fold from 1978. So the 30-year period, 1978 to 2008, was
there no conclusive evidence to lower the standard sooner? How
did the evidence accumulate over time, over the 30-year period?
Mr. Vandenberg. Thank you for your question. There were
other evaluations that occurred during that interim period. And
part of that work led to continued work with CDC and others to
look at the implementation of the lead removal from paint, for
example. So there was an advancement of science, but there was
not a decision to change the standard until 2008. And as you
know, at that time the standard was changed by an order of
magnitude, very substantially.
That is the standard that is in the ambient air. And it was
based on an evaluation of learning in children, i.e.
detriments, trying to avoid, from our science advisors, a
certain amount of IQ detriment. So it was based on a
significant body of science, a very substantial and important
review by our scientific advisory committee, and then the
Administrator's decision led to that change by an order of
magnitude in 2008.
Senator Udall. Yes. Now, Dr. Vandenberg, you mentioned the
pathways for this coming into the body in your testimony. You
talk about hand to mouth contact, inhalation of lead dust,
eating peeling paint chips, drinking water conveyed through
lead pipes and exposure to soil, which can act as a reservoir
for deposited lead emissions.
Is there one that is more prevalent in terms of getting the
lead into the body, or does it depend on the situation at the
particular household? And then what is the question to the CDC,
what do you do in your prevention campaigns in order to let
people know, based on these pathways, what they should be doing
looking for, anyway?
Mr. Vandenberg. Thank you, Senator. To the first part of
your question, for homes that have lead-based paint in them, it
clearly is the ingestion of lead dust, either paint chips or
dust that is in the home site that is the major source of the
exposure to the children in such homes. In other communities,
it may be different. It is a bit site specific, depending in
the location and the community and the household setting. But
generally if there is lead paint in the home, that typically is
the dominant source of lead exposure.
Senator Udall. And obviously the question, a follow up
question to the CDC, what do you do in terms of the prevention
side of this to let families know what they should be looking
for in terms of lead-based paint and those kinds of situations?
Mr. Portier. Again, we have lots of recommendations along
these lines with our partners at EPA and HUD. On pre-1978
housing, we strongly encourage homeowners to check their paint
for lead. There are tests that can be done. They are not, from
my understanding, very expensive. And that at least tells you
whether you have a problem to start with.
And then we have guidance for how to, if you are going to
leave the paint there, what you should be doing to minimize the
exposure.
Senator Udall. When you say pre-1978 housing, does the CDC
or anyone else go in, try to go into housing and actually put
flyers out or something and say, you are living in pre-1978
housing, you should get a test, this if the way to do it, if
you need additional information, call us?
Mr. Portier. In select communities where we believe there
was a high--where we believe there was a high threat based upon
observing many children with high blood lead levels, we have
gone door to door and notified people that they might want to
get their child tested for high blood lead levels. We have come
in with our partners and the State and done some of those
tests.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, and thank you for your
dedication to the safety of our children. I really appreciate
your work, both at the CDC and the EPA. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
I would ask unanimous consent to place in the record
studies that examine lead's impacts on human behavior. One of
them is Understanding International Crime Trends: the Legacy of
Pre-School Lead Exposure. The other is Early Exposure to Lead
in Juvenile Delinquency. The other is Lifetime Low Level
Exposure to Environmental Lead in Children's Emotional and
Behavioral Development, Ages 11 to 13. And the last one here is
Early Exposure to Lead in Neuropsychological Outcomes in
Adolescents. These are all authored by prominent scientists and
physicians.
And then I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
letter sent to myself and Senator Inhofe from the American
Academy of Pediatrics, stating there is no safe level of lead,
saying that we need support for funding for lead prevention
programs. I think this is a very important letter.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. I have to say, the press is always here when
we are having a battle royale. Not too many press are here. But
if the press wants to do a good job, if they want to go back to
the days when we had journalism that really helped people, they
ought to let everybody know that there is no safe level of
lead, and that to play it safe, have your kid tested.
Because we learned something today very clearly. It is not
complicated. It is not even debatable. And what we learned is,
A, there is no safe level of lead, and that the impacts fall
hardest on our children, and that not near enough kids are
being tested for this. There are still 40 percent of Medicaid
kids who aren't being tested, and we don't even know today, but
we are going to find out the rest of the population.
And we also know that most of the horrible impacts cannot
be reversed. And the only solution is to stop the exposure if
you can. If it is in the home, you have a better chance at it.
If it is in the toys, if it is in the dishes, if it is in the
paint, there is a chance. But we don't know. Because I have the
list, we have the list of where the most lead is. The first one
is hazardous waste solvent recovery, primary metals, coal
mining, stone clay in glass, fabricated metals, chemicals. It
goes on and on. Computers, electronic products, paper, plastic
and rubber. And a lot of this is going into the air, is that
right, Dr. Vandenberg?
Mr. Vandenberg. Some of that certainly is.
Senator Boxer. And a lot of it could be in the soil, is
that right, Dr. Portier? Dr. Vandenberg, both?
Mr. Portier. Yes.
Mr. Vandenberg. Yes.
Senator Boxer. So you agree with that. So the air, the
soil, what about the water?
Mr. Portier. To some degree, but a lesser extent.
Senator Boxer. Do you agree with that?
And in these products, so here is the situation. People
don't know this. And we all talk about why are we having a
problem with attention deficit disorder. Maybe the answer is in
front of our face. And at the same time, we look at the House,
and they are cutting the EPA budget to the bone, with talk
about how the EPA is a terrible agency. They have a war against
the Environmental Protection Agency. Seventy-five of the people
disagree with them, but that doesn't stop them.
And so I want to thank you, from the bottom of my heart.
Because I have learned a tremendous amount today. I am proud of
the work that is being done in California. But I have to tell
you, this is a national problem. And we do have a President who
really took a big lead when he was on this Committee on this
issue.
So let's let the word go out from here, not from elected
officials, but from the doctors that there is no safe level of
lead, that there are terrible problems associated with any
level of exposure, that those problems are very hard to
reverse, and we need to prevent this problem in the first
place. And the best way to do that is to test your child for
exposure to lead, see if there is anything in the home that is
leading to this problem, and for the rest of us, we have to
work outside the home to make sure that we clean up hazardous
waste sites, Superfund sites, and get rid of this stuff.
I guess I have one question. If an adult is exposed, you
touched on it briefly, but I want to go back to that. And let's
say they didn't have exposure as a kid but if an adult now is
exposed, what are the problems? Either of you can answer or
both of you can answer.
Mr. Vandenberg. There is evidence that increased lead is
associated with changes in blood pressure and hypertension in
adults.
Senator Boxer. Anything else, Dr. Portier?
Mr. Portier. There is some indication of an increase in
essential tremors in adults as well. And in adult men, adverse
changes in sperm parameters and increased time to pregnancy.
Senator Boxer. What about time to pregnancy?
Mr. Portier. Increased time to pregnancy in adult men. And
then in adult women, reduced fetal growth.
Senator Boxer. OK, so what we have now is additional
information that for adults, there are serious problems, that
include high blood pressure, tremors, problems with
reproductive health. Now, USA Today--when did this run? In May,
ran a story that said that old closed factories that emitted
lead that have not been adequately tested, located all over the
United States, could be a source of exposure. So these are the
kinds of things we need to deal with.
But right now, I say take it one step at a time. Test those
children and adults should be tested as well. We have an
epidemic of high blood pressure. It is millions of people, is
it not, Dr. Portier, that have high blood pressure? And if it
is something that they are exposed to in the home as well, this
could change things. Am I right, Dr. Vandenberg? If you reduce
the exposure?
Mr. Vandenberg. Again, the increase in lead is associated
with higher blood pressure, hypertension, as well as renal
effects that I might mention as well.
Senator Boxer. Renal effects. Can that be reversed if the
source is done away with? Or is that going to be with you the
rest of your life?
Mr. Vandenberg. There are a lot of factors that influence
those outcomes. So it could be affected by other factors, such
as nutrition.
Senator Boxer. No, I wasn't asking that. If you took away,
if it was caused by the lead exposure and you took away that
exposure, it was something in the home for an adult, would that
have a good impact or not necessarily on the blood?
Mr. Vandenberg. I can't really say; I am not sure.
Senator Boxer. All right. Lead is bad. And we need to do
everything in our power to protect people in this country from
it. And let the word go out to those who would print lies and
disinformation that this Committee is going to stand very tall
on this one, and we are not going to allow that disinformation
to influence the people of this country who are very smart, and
they believe the doctors. And we are going to make sure of
that.
I want to thank both of you. You are doing a great job.
Your testimony was clear, unequivocal and it means a lot to
those of us on this Committee.
We stand adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
I understand that we are having a hearing today about one
of the things that I think all Members of Congress agree on:
lead exposure in children is harmful. I appreciate the
opportunity to hear from both the CDC and EPA about their
ongoing scientific understanding of how lead impacts human
health.
Before we get started, I hope we take a minute to discuss
the very important public health success story we have
regarding reducing lead exposure in children. Since 1976
average blood lead levels in children have been reduced nearly
10-fold, from 15 micrograms per deciliter in 1976 to 1.5
micrograms per deciliter in 2008. The number of children tested
each year has increased while the blood lead level of those
tested continues to decrease. In most States, CDC's old blood
lead level of concern of 10 micrograms per deciliter or greater
is found in less than 1 percent of children tested. We have
accomplished this by focusing on those sources of lead exposure
that had a significant impact on blood lead levels. The United
States has some of the lowest lead paint limits and limits on
the lead content of toys in the entire world. We have minimized
or eliminated hazardous amounts of lead in consumer products,
gasoline, and the environment, resulting in a dramatic decrease
in blood lead levels across the entire nation.
We here in Congress continue to take steps toward further
reducing lead exposure. Last Congress, Senator Boxer and I were
successful in updating the definition of ``lead free'' in the
Safe Drinking Water Act--through the Reduction of Lead in
Drinking Water Act--which tightened the legal definition of
``lead free'' for pipes and fixtures from 8 percent to 0.25
percent lead in the whetted surfaces of pipes. Additionally, as
part of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act this year, we
authorized the FAA Administrator to continue the important work
on research and development for a safe transition to unleaded
aircraft fuel.
As we continue to take additional steps toward further
reducing childhood lead exposure, I would encourage my
colleagues to focus on ensuring that we are proposing
achievable, common sense responses to the problem that will
provide actual health benefits to children. Our approach toward
reducing toxicologically significant blood lead levels must be
based on a scientific approach and not precautionary paranoia.
And we need robust oversight to ensure that the programs we
have in place are effective.
I am disappointed that we as a Committee are missing a real
opportunity to get feedback on EPA's current regulatory efforts
to reduce childhood lead exposure. I am pleased that Dr.
Vandenberg is here to discuss EPA's NAAQS revisions on lead,
and I'm sure he would agree with me that a major success of the
Clean Air Act and EPA's regulatory efforts is the removal of
lead from motor vehicle gasoline. This has had a dramatic
effect of lowering levels of lead in the air. They decreased by
94 percent between 1980 and 1999. Unfortunately, it does not
appear we have anyone present who can update us on the
implementation of the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act,
either from the regulator or regulated community, or to update
us about other EPA programs.
I am very concerned that EPA's current efforts to further
reduce lead exposures are not achieving their full potential.
EPA's Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule's
implementation has been inconsistent and confusing, and I am
very concerned that the benefits of this rule are not being
fully realized. When we have exercised oversight, positive
changes have been made. Last Congress, the Senate
overwhelmingly approved the Collins amendment to H.R. 4899,
which resulted in EPA extending the compliance deadline for
taking lead safe training courses. Since then, there have
continued to be issues with the program's execution and poor
enforcement that I believe require additional oversight in
order to ensure that the program actually achieves its health
goals: protecting children from lead dust exposure. Madam
Chairman, I would remind you that last year the Republicans on
this Committee requested an oversight hearing on this rule, and
we have yet to have one. I know there are still many concerns
and confusion from the regulated community and the public
health community about how EPA is enforcing and educating the
public, and I hope that we can address them at a future
hearing.
Each year we get closer to reducing the blood lead levels
of the population of this nation to that of the background
exposure level of the ambient environment. I hope that as we
move forward from this hearing toward developing policies that
help further address lead exposure, we focus on science-based,
common sense approaches that will provide achievable and
meaningful health benefits.
[all]