Process changes proposed for the FY 2005 budget resolution
would require steadily deeper, across-the-board cuts to domestic programs and
make it easier to enact frequent tax cuts, analyses by the non-partisan Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) show.
The process changes, proposed by President Bush, would
include five-year caps on total discretionary spending, which would have the
effect of cutting all discretionary spending 11 percent by 2009. Some programs
would be particularly hard-hit. Environmental budgets would be cut by at least
20 percent over the next five fiscal years, while health programs would be cut
by 11 percent. Other programs that would suffer include lead hazard control
initiatives and programs that help low-income families obtain affordable housing.
Overall, under the proposed budget caps, over $140 billion would be cut from
discretionary spending by 2009.
Equally troubling is that the caps would require funding
trade-offs without requiring other sacrifices like tax increases. This means
that as the nation increases its defense and homeland security budgets to combat
terrorism, even deeper cuts than those already estimated would be required for
some programs.
CBPP points out that these caps and their required budget
cuts would have no effect on the growing federal budget deficit. Combined with
continuation of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as other tax cuts that may
be included in the 2005 budget, deficits would actually increase even as domestic
spending falls.
The Administration is also asking Congress to reinstate
the pay-as-you go rule for entitlement programs such as Social Security and
Medicare. This rule would require that any increases in entitlement programs
be paid for through cuts in other programs. Unlike previous pay-as-you-go requirements,
however, the current proposal would not require any tax cuts to be paid for
within the budget.
Some or all of these budget process changes can be expected
in both the Senate and House versions of the FY 2005 budget resolution. The
Senate Budget Committee is releasing its resolution by March 5, and the full
Senate is scheduled to debate and vote on the resolution the week of March 8.
The House Budget Committee will release its budget resolution by March 12 and
will send its version to the House Floor the week of March 15. Leadership in
both houses desires final passage of the budget resolution before the Easter
recess in April.
The Alliance opposes these budget process changes and the
drastic cuts to a wide variety of domestic programs that help prevent childhood
lead poisoning and promote healthy homes practices. For more information on
how you can help defeat these proposals, please see our Action Alert at http://www.afhh.org/aa/aa_main.htm
today.
The CBPP analyses of these budget process proposals can
be found at http://www.cbpp.org/.
Alliance Calls
for Boosting Healthy Homes Funding
The Alliance for Healthy Homes is calling on Congress to
increase funding for HUD’s Healthy Homes Initiative to $20 million for
FY 2005. Funded at a level $10 million since FY 1999, HUD’s Healthy Homes
grants fund health homes tools and practices that can then be mainstreamed in
all housing construction, rehab, and maintenance programs.
Healthy Homes grants are awarded competitively to government
agencies, universities, and other non-profit organizations across the country
to develop, evaluate, and disseminate cost-effective tools and practices for
preventing and controlling health hazards in housing. Integrating healthy homes
principles and practices at low cost into existing maintenance, rehab, operation,
design, and construction can avoid costly mold and moisture problems and reduce
the risk of asthma and childhood lead poisoning.
The Alliance is also calling on Congress to restore the
$35 million in cuts to the Lead Hazard Reduction Program proposed in the President’s
budget. Restoration would bring lead hazard control grants back to $175 million,
including continuation of the $50 million initiative that targets cities with
the most widespread lead hazards.
Over the coming months, we need your help to convince Congress
to continue and increase its commitment to healthy homes and childhood lead
poisoning prevention. To sign on to the campaign to double funding for Healthy
Homes and to restore full funding for lead hazard control grants, please contact
Ralph Scott (rscott@afhh.org).
DC Health Department
Issues Lead Advisory
In late February, the Washington, DC, Department of Health
issued a water consumption advisory to all homes with lead service lines. The
advisory directs all pregnant women and children under six who live in such
homes to immediately stop drinking unfiltered tap water and to have their blood
tested for lead.
The advisory seeks to protect those who are most at risk
from lead—fetuses and young children. Children and fetuses are more likely
to absorb the toxin when swallowed, inhaled, or passed through the placenta.
The advisory follows a Washington Post story in early February
disclosing the discovery last summer of high lead levels in the water of thousands
of homes throughout the District. The Post reports that DC Water and Sewer Authority
announced that they may distribute free water filters to the homes affected
by the lead advisory.
In response to this lead emergency, an informal coalition
of advocacy groups known as the Lead Emergency Action for the District (LEAD)
has been formed. The coalition wants a quick, efficient, and complete response
to the current lead emergency, and it is working to direct greater attention
to issues of lead poisoning prevention and safe drinking water. LEAD includes
a variety of groups, including the Alliance for Healthy Homes, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, Clean Water Action, D.C. Environmental Network, Friends of
the Earth, National Black Environmental Justice Network, Public Citizen, and
the Working Group on Community Right to Know.
If concerned about lead in drinking water in your community,
various options are available for testing drinking water for lead. Some utilities
offer free tests for residents, most environmental laboratories perform such
tests, and home test kits are available. The low-cost home test kit that the
Alliance’s Community Environmental Health Resource Center uses provides
an immediate screen for pesticides and bacteria as well as lead. For more information
visit www.cehrc.org/tools/lead/leadwater/index.cfm.
New England Study
Reveals High Incidence of Asthma
The New England Asthma Regional Council released a study
in February that is the most comprehensive assessment of childhood asthma ever
conducted in the region. According to the study, 12.3 percent of New England
children have been diagnosed with asthma, a total of 400,000 children in a six-state
region.
Nationwide, millions of children are afflicted with asthma.
It is the most common chronic illness in children and the number one cause of
missed school days in the U.S. Asthma causes 14 million missed school days and
costs the nation $14 billion a year.
Researchers also identified a variety of triggers, many
found within the home, that set off asthma attacks in children. These include
mold, dust, and cockroach droppings. The study noted that these triggers are
most often found in older housing that is poorly maintained.
The study also found that the consequences of childhood
asthma fall disproportionately on the poor. Children from the poorest families
were twice as likely to have asthma as kids from higher-income families. Compounding
the problem, poorer families often do not have the resources to rid their homes
of asthma triggers; they often rent, and landlords can be resistant to taking
steps to eliminate health hazards like mold and roaches.
FHA Mortgage Applicants
to Receive Radon Information
HUD has revised the home inspection form used for all mortgages
insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to include information about
radon. The form reiterates the EPA and U.S. Surgeon General recommendation that
all houses be tested for radon and lists EPA’s 1-800-SOS-Radon hotline.
HUD is not requiring a radon test for FHA insurance eligibility, only that buyers
receive the information.
Radon is an odorless radioactive gas formed from the breakdown
of uranium found in soil, rocks beneath and around building foundations, ground
water wells, and some building materials. Exposure to radon in homes can increase
the risk of lung cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimate that radon is the top cause of lung cancer
in non-smokers and is responsible for as many as 15,000 to 22,000 cancer deaths
each year. The most recent NAS study concluded that the risk of lung cancer
from radon is 50% higher than previous estimates. The NAS study found that even
very small exposures to radon can result in lung cancer and concluded that no
evidence exists of a threshold below which radon exposure is harmless.
According to EPA, nearly 1 out of every 15 homes in the
U.S. has elevated radon levels. Radon may be present in any home or building,
regardless of age. Since 1988, federal law has required HUD to ensure that residents
of federally assisted housing are not exposed to hazardous levels of radon,
but HUD has yet to implement any effort to assess or mitigate radon risks in
housing units receiving federal assistance.
Texas Close to Finalizing
Regulations on Mold Contractor Certification
The Texas Department of Health is close to finalizing regulations
governing the certification of mold assessment and remediation contractors.
Unfortunately the proposed rule (online at www.tdh.state.tx.us/beh/iaq/NewLaw.htm)
is likely to put moisture and mold prevention, assessment, and control out of
reach for low-income households.
While the proposed rules have been substantially improved
since the initial draft, the Alliance has gone on record opposing the rule because
it is too complex and costly to meet the needs of the vast majority of Texas
families. The proposed rule pays little attention to moisture problems—the
underlying cause of mold growth—and focuses on addressing worst-case situations
of properties with extensive and complex problems, an approach that hampered
the national response to asbestos and lead-based paint. Highly complex mold
problems justify use of highly trained experts, comprehensive safeguards, and
exacting proof of completion. However, failure to recognize that the vast majority
of properties call for simpler solutions will result in protocols and work practices
that are unduly complex for the majority of situations and beyond the reach
of low-income families who typically face the highest risks.
The Alliance has urged the Texas Department of Health to
withdraw its proposed regulations on mold assessment and remediation and seek
the Texas legislature’s support in developing an alternative approach
for dealing with moisture and mold in buildings. See the Alliance comments at
www.afhh.org/aa/aa_hh_policy_state_local.htm#Pending.
Paint Industry Pushing
their Lead Poisoning Bill in Several States
Proposed state lead legislation drafted in 2002 by the
paint industry trade group, National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA),
has resurfaced this year in Kentucky, Illinois, and Florida, and may possibly
be introduced other states. In 2002 and 2003, NPCA attempted unsuccessfully
to enact versions of their bill in IL, KY, OR, and NJ. Unfortunately, the bills
contain many fundamental flaws along with a few commendable provisions. The
bills (which vary somewhat in content from state to state) assign responsibilities
to a wide range of actors: landlords, insurers, realtors, code enforcers, health
care providers, taxpayers—everyone, that is, except the lead pigment makers
and paint companies responsible for creating the problem in the first place.
Getting such a law on the books in any state would greatly help former lead
paint manufacturers employ a “blame-the-landlords” strategy like
the one they used to counter Rhode Island’s lawsuit to hold the paint
industry accountable for creating a public nuisance.
The original NPCA bill would require all pre-1978 rental
units to be inspected and/or treated by certified personnel to become “lead-free”
or “lead-safe.” The bill fails to take advantage of more cost-effective
strategies for reducing lead hazards in housing and makes no mention of using
lead-safe work practices. Although the KY bill provides a modest tax credit
to offset the costs of lead safety treatments, there is no provision in any
of the bills that the paint or lead industries contribute their fair share of
the costs associated with addressing lead paint hazards. If these bills are
not summarily defeated by the real estate industry, the next most likely outcome
could be amendments to severely weaken their lead safety standards and enforcement
mechanisms. We urge advocates in other states to watch out for any appearance
of a variation of this bill and to contact Ralph Scott (rscott@afhh.org)
for the Alliance’s analysis of the bill.
Census Bureau Highlights
Patterns and Problems in Old Housing Units
The U.S. Census Bureau issued a report in February entitled
“These Old Houses: 2001” that documents a variety of patterns and
problems with America’s “old” housing stock. Older housing
stock is defined in the report as that built before 1920 and accounts for approximately
ten million housing units throughout the United States. Old housing units are
home to roughly 8.6 million households.
Problems particularly prevalent in old housing units include
holes and cracks in the interior, peeling paint, broken or damaged windows,
roofing issues, and troubles with siding. Such problems can cause health hazards
such as persistent moisture, mold growth, cockroach infestation, and more. Peeling
paint is of special concern in old housing units, as a substantial portion of
homes built before 1920 contain lead-based paint.
Among the patterns observed by the Census Bureau, the report
highlights income differences among owners and renters who live in older housing
units versus newer housing units. Owners living in homes built before 1920 had
an average income of $61,000, while their new home counterparts earned $84,000.
This same pattern held true for renters; tenants living in pre-1920 housing
earned $34,000, while renters living in post-1990 housing earned $42,000. These
data indicate once again that families with lower incomes tend to live in older
housing that contains more problems and health hazards compared with newer housing
stock occupied by higher-income households. For a copy of “These Old Houses,”
visit www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/h121-04-1.pdf.
FEC Backs Off Restricting
Free Speech of Advocacy Groups—For Now
On Feb. 18, 2004, the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
announced it was rejecting Advisory Opinion 2003-37, which would have severely
curtailed the free speech rights of issue advocacy groups.
The advisory opinion, drafted in response to a series of
inquiries from a conservative political committee known as “Americans
for a Better Country,” suggested that the FEC has the authority to regulate
any activity by any political group or advocacy organization that “promotes,
supports, attacks, or opposes” any candidate for federal office. This
means that any activity by any organization that criticized or supported the
policy positions of any federal officeholder or candidate for federal office
could have only been funded with “hard money.” Hard money may consist
of individual donations up to $5,000 but cannot include any corporate or labor
union money.
Over 475 organizations, including strong supporters of
campaign finance reform and progressive and conservative advocacy groups, argued
that this type of regulation is outside of the FEC’s authority and that
the FEC cannot adopt new regulations through advisory opinions. In addition,
the groups argued that the Federal Election Campaign Act covers election activities
that promote the election or defeat of candidates, not policy advocacy activities
that name officeholders who also happen to be federal candidates.
The FEC did adopt an alternate advisory opinion that applies
only to Section 527 political committees which do engage in election activities.
These committees will be required to fund their operations using only hard money.
While not as damaging to free speech and policy advocacy as the broader Advisory
Opinion, this action still restricts the work of many issue advocacy organizations
that rely on Section 527 allies to educate voters on policy issues close to
an election. The commission has also left open the possibility of imposing these
restrictions on all policy advocacy organizations in the near future, through
a formal rulemaking process that was set to begin March 4.
Integrity, Objectivity
of Federal Scientific Advisory Panels Questioned
In mid-February, a group of highly respected scientists
released a statement criticizing the Bush Administration’s use of scientific
information. The statement claims that the Administration distorts or ignores
scientific evidence in order to pursue its political goals. Those signing the
statement included 11 winners of the National Medal of Science, several heads
of major universities, leaders of biomedical research centers, and 12 Nobel
Prize winners.
The statement was backed by an in-depth report produced
by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Entitled “Scientific Integrity in
Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of
Science,” the report examines documented instances in which scientific
evidence was ignored, distorted, or suppressed; where important research was
not disseminated; and where scientific advisory panels were manipulated or abolished
altogether.
Of particular interest to organizations and individuals
fighting childhood lead poisoning, the report documents manipulation of the
CDC’s Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention.
In 2002, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson
rejected nominees to the panel who were requested by CDC staff and were experts
in their fields. They were replaced by nominees of Thompson’s choosing,
and at least two of the new nominees had financial ties to the lead industry
and one had espoused theories minimizing the effects of lower-level lead exposure
that fell far outside the scientific consensus.
On March 17, The Maine Indoor Air Quality Council is sponsoring
a conference to highlight the latest information connecting home construction/renovation/inspection/maintenance
to documented health problems of building occupants. “New Approaches for
IAQ Healthy Homes” will be held in Augusta, Maine, and will cover topics
including how a house functions as a system, construction factors that can influence
indoor air quality, and where to find resources and support. For more information,
visit www.miaqc.org/2004%20Conference%20Summary.htm
or call 207-626-8115.
United Parents Against Lead is holding its 2004 conference
in Richmond, Virginia, from April 29 to May 2. Conference events will include
a town hall meeting on lead, a training session on lead hazard control, and
dinner with Vanessa Williams, the group’s Spokesmom. Further details can
obtained by calling Zakia Shabazz at 804-714-1618. Hotel reservations at the
Radisson Historic Richmond Hotel can be made by calling 804-644-9871. Mention
the UPAL Conference for a special rate.
The Western Regional Conference on Mold, Lead, and Healthy
Homes and Children’s Environmental Health, originally scheduled for March
31 to April 2 in Berkeley, California, has been rescheduled for November 17-19.
Further details can be obtained by visiting www.leadmoldconferences.com
or by calling Kristin Joyner at 1-800-590-6522.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe
To subscribe or unsubscribe to this newsletter, send an
e-mail (afhh@afhh.org)
or fax (202-543-4466) with "Subscribe" or "Unsubscribe"
in the subject line. If you received this issue of the Alliance Alert via fax,
please send us your e-mail address for faster delivery and to conserve resources.
Thank you!
