[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 78 (Thursday, May 27, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1122-E1123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


CHILDREN'S LEAD SCREENING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EARLY-INTERVENTION ACT OF 
                                  1999

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 27, 1999

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the 
Children's Lead Screening Accountability for Early-Intervention Act of 
1999. This important legislation will strengthen federal mandates 
designed to protect our children from lead poisoning--a preventable 
tragedy that continues to threaten the health of our children.
  Childhood lead poisoning has long been considered the number one 
environmental health threat facing children in the United States, and 
despite dramatic reductions in blood lead levels over the past 20 
years, lead poisoning continues to be a significant health risk for 
young children. CDC has estimated that about 890,000, or 4.4 percent of 
children between the ages of one and five have harmful levels of lead 
in their blood. Even at low levels, lead can have harmful effects on a 
child's intelligence and his, or her, ability to learn.
  Children can be exposed to lead from a number of sources. We are all 
cognizant of lead-based paint found in older homes and buildings. 
However, children may also be exposed to non-paint sources of lead, as 
well as lead dust. Poor and minority children, who typically live in 
older housing, are at highest risk of lead poisoning. Therefore, this 
health threat is of particular concern to states, like New Jersey, 
where more than 35 percent of homes were built prior to 1950.
  In 1996, New Jersey implemented a law requiring health care providers 
to test all children under the age of 6 for lead exposure. But during 
the first year of this requirement, there were actually fewer children 
screened than the year before, when there was no requirement at all. 
Between July 1997 and July 1998, 13,596 children were tested for lead 
poisoning. The year before that more than 17,000 tests were done.
  At the federal level, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) 
has mandated that Medicaid children under 2 years of age be screened 
for elevated blood lead levels. However, recent General Accounting 
Office (GAO) reports indicate that this is not being done. For example, 
the GAO has found that only about 21% of Medicaid children between the 
ages of one and two have been screened. In the state of New Jersey, 
only about 39% of children enrolled in Medicaid have been screened.
  Based on these reviews at both the state and federal levels, it is 
obvious that improvements must be made to ensure that children are 
screened early and receive follow up treatment if lead is detected. 
that is why I am introducing this legislation which I believe will 
address some of the shortcomings that have been identified in existing 
requirements.
  The legislation will require Medicaid providers to screen children 
and cover treatment for children found to have elevated levels of lead 
in their blood. It will also require improved data reporting of 
children who re tested, so that we can accurately monitor the results 
of the program. Because more than 75%--or nearly 700,000--of the 
children found to have

[[Page E1123]]

elevated blood lead levels are part of federally funded health care 
programs, our bill targets not only Medicaid, but also Head Start, 
Early Head Start and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 
Women, Infants and Children (WIC). Head Start and WIC programs would be 
allowed to perform screening or to mandate that parents show proof of 
screenings in order to enroll their children.
  Education, early screening and prompt follow-up care will save 
millions in health care costs; but, more importantly will save our 
greatest resource--our children.

                          ____________________