Testimony before the Committee on Housing and Buildings
New York City Council

Intro 101-A
New York City Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 2003

June 23, 2003
2:00 PM
(as prepared for delivery)

Good afternoon, Chairperson Provenzano and members of the Committee on Housing and Buildings. I am pleased to testify in support of Intro 101-A, the New York City Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 2003, and on this extremely important health issue.

Childhood lead poisoning is a wholly preventable and devastating disease. Although the permanent neurological damage that can result from lead poisoning can be reduced with prompt medical treatment and special education, damage to the long-term educational and vocational prospects of lead-poisoned children cannot be undone.

In addition to the serious and unnecessary harm to affected children and their families, lead poisoning has fiscal consequences for the City, including the cost of medical intervention, special education and damages paid out in lead poisoning lawsuits brought against the City.

Since it is now more than four decades since the City's lead paint ban was put into place, I am greatly concerned by New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) figures revealing that in 2000, 7,657 children ages 6 months to less than 6 years had elevated levels of lead in their blood, and 817 children were newly identified as being lead poisoned. These numbers likely underreport the City's ongoing childhood lead poisoning levels because only a fraction of young children are tested in the manner required by State law. Alarmingly, the threat of continued lead paint poisoning in New York City is all too real. A report released by the Pratt Area Community Council this month revealed that more than one third of the residential buildings that were tested for lead in Bedford-Stuyvesant had lead levels that ranged from 5 to 100 times the federal threshold.

Recent medical research has revealed two more disturbing facts about lead:
· First, lead exposure has a measurable negative impact on children's IQ, even when their blood lead levels are below the federal threshold of 10 micrograms per deciliter. According to a recent article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, blood lead concentration is inversely and significantly associated with IQ. In fact, the study described in the article found that children whose blood levels of lead were below federal standards showed even greater changes in IQ as a result of lead exposure than children whose levels exceeded federal standards.
· Second, children are not the only victims of lead poisoning. Adults with moderately elevated blood lead levels died more frequently of circulatory and cardiovascular illness than adults with lower blood lead levels, according to research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Making matters worse, in May 2002, I confirmed that the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), for the two prior fiscal years, had not spent the amount originally budgeted for lead control and removal activities. For example, for Fiscal Year 02, actual HPD expenditures for lead control and removal activities were approximately $6 million as compared with an expense budget for that Fiscal Year of approximately $25 million for these activities. In Fiscal Year 2003, the budgeted expenditures have fallen to $17.267 million. If the actual rate of expenditure in this Fiscal Year were comparable to Fiscal Year 2002, then only $4.316 million will have been spent on lead control and removal. As soon as this Fiscal Year is over, I will determine HPD's actual program expenditures.

Additionally, lead paint poisoning imposes a heavy burden on New York City taxpayers because of the monetary damages it has to pay as the result of court judgements involving lead poisoned youngsters. In Fiscal Year 2002, the City entered into 15 settlements and paid out $4,535,000. In Fiscal Year 2003, to date, the City has entered into 34 settlements and has paid out $4,282,115.

Based on our knowledge and years of experience contending with this public health threat, the City's current lead poisoning prevention program clearly is not adequate. Most notably, Local Law 38 does not define lead dust as a hazard and shifts to tenants the responsibility of notifying the landlord that children under the age of six are living in the building. As the City learned from its experience with the window guard law, the best law requires active landlord vigilance.

Intro 101-A, sponsored by Councilman Bill Perkins and 35 other Council members, would help the City to craft and implement a better lead paint poisoning prevention program than is achievable under Local Law 38. If enacted, it would consolidate the administration and enforcement of the City's lead poisoning prevention program, which is now unnecessarily divided between HPD and DOHMH. It would establish clear standards and benchmarks that would allow the City to ascertain how well it is achieving its public health goals and DOHMH would have the primary responsibility for promulgating rules and developing procedures as well as for monitoring the specific programs required by state law.

For example, passage of Intro 101-A would restore legal protections to New York City's children between the ages of 6 and 7 and it would establish specific goals for the rate of blood-lead testing and for reduction of the number of children who become lead poisoned. Intro 101-A defines lead dust as a hazard - a critical omission in Local Law 38 - and it establishes important inspection, notice and correction standards that will help New York protect the health of its youngest and most vulnerable residents. Enactment of this bill would also expand provisions for the J-51 tax incentive program to cover residential lead inspections, risk assessments and abatements in the homes of children from the time of birth through their seventh birthday, even if these children are not lead poisoned. I applaud this provision for its importance in improving lead paint poisoning prevention.

The financial implications of the passage of this bill are positive for the City. According to a new report by the Independent Budget Office, the total net annual cost of implementing Intro 101-A is $8,197,700. By any calculation, this is many millions of dollars less than the amount the City will have to spend on medical care and special education for lead poisoned children, in addition to amounts paid to settle claims brought by their families. Lost tax revenues that result from the lowered lifetime earnings of lead poisoned children is another significant financial cost. The loss of one IQ point is associated with a reduction in lifetime earnings of an estimated 2.39% according to an article cited in the July 2002 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. Some estimates translate this impact into earnings losses of more than $1 billion a year.

The unacceptably high numbers of children still being sickened by lead paint point to serious problems in the City's lead poisoning prevention efforts. The deficiencies in the current local law highlight the need for the City Council to act promptly on Intro 101-A.

In this City, far too many children still suffer from the effects of lead poisoning. We all have an obligation to protect the health and welfare of our most vulnerable population. I urge the City Council to take action on this important matter. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.