The Journal Gazette, 600 W. Main St., Fort Wayne IN

INDIANAPOLIS – A bill aimed at protecting children from lead poisoning has seen dramatic changes throughout the legislative session, including allowing parents to sue manufacturers and importers of tainted toys.

But the proposed legislation could die without an agreement in the next five days.

“I hope we get something out,” said Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield. “I’m still committed to the issue.”

Lawmakers have been assigned to negotiate a compromise, but there have been no public conference committee meetings, and progress on the bill has been hard to come by.

Lead poisoning can cause damage to the kidneys, nervous system and brain and, in young children, behavior and learning problems.

About 1 percent of all children tested are found to have been poisoned, but state officials have said that in some counties the proportion can approach 4 percent.

Experts say the biggest threat to children is lead-based paint in homes built before 1978. Indiana ranks 11th among states in its percentage of such homes, with 1 million homes built before 1950.

As introduced, Senate Bill 143 would have put the responsibility for eliminating the problem largely upon landlords. They would have to pay for lead paint inspections whenever a rental unit is sold, rented or identified in a permit for remodeling or rehabilitation, and have 90 days to fix any contamination.

The legislation would have required child-care centers to have annual assessments of their lead risks and to require proof of a blood-lead screen for children 9 months and older before enrollment.

More than a quarter of all child-care centers nationwide contain some lead-based paint, including more than half of those built before 1960, Gard said.

Some changes were made to the bill in the Senate, though the core of the bill stayed the same. It passed by a vote of 35-13 – a relatively close vote for the Senate. And a number of Republican members voted “no.”

The bill then moved to the House, where representatives refined the bill further.

By the time it came up for a final vote on the floor, it established a lead-safe advisory council; removed all provisions regarding child-care centers; required abortion clinics in buildings constructed before 1978 to have a lead assessment by 2011; and required landlords to remediate lead if found.

Rep. Shelli VanDenburgh, D-Crown Point, added a provision on second reading that has generated some disagreement.

It allows a consumer or user who is injured by certain hazardous substances to bring a civil suit against the manufacturer, importer or wholesalers. Retailers would not be affected.

The provision targets the issue of lead-tainted toys from China, something the mother of two is concerned about.

“We should always be putting our kids’ safety above profit,” she said, remembering the fear generated last year after learning that most of her daughter’s dress-up jewelry was recalled.

VanDenburgh said the lawsuit provision simply puts all those involved in bringing toys into the country on notice that they could be held liable, and she has no objection if that means slightly more expensive toys.

“We’re using zero tolerance,” she said.

The revised bill barely passed, 51-48, with Republicans largely against it because of the lawsuit provision. Several lawyers explained that it allows for “joint and several liability,” which allows a consumer to go after the company with the deepest pockets even if its level of liability is small.

Rep. David Wolkins, R-Winona Lake, called it one of the most overreaching bills he has seen in his two decades in the legislature, saying it will have unintended consequences and not save kids’ lives.

For instance, he said some versions of the bill required clerks at discount stores that sell paint to have specialized training even though paint in the U.S. no longer contains lead.

“Some of the provisions make absolutely no sense,” Wolkins said.

And Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Lakeville, also argued against the bill, especially the part that would have originally ensnared child-care centers.

She said that 90 percent of kids with lead poisoning get it from their home, not their day care.

“We need to clean up the 90 percent first, then see what we have to mandate to the 10 percent,” Walorski said, specifically encouraging the state to go after federal grant dollars to help homeowners remediate their own homes.

Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, sponsored the bill in the House and said he can’t figure out why Republicans are fighting the measure.

“The bill has been watered down tremendously to meet the desires of everyone,” he said. “It’s beyond the pale that (the GOP) can constantly talk about family values but not want to protect children.”

Gard said she thinks removing the child-care provision was probably a good move by the House, and she said that the lawsuit provision would have to be taken out for her to support any compromise.

She said that even when a family moves out of a lead-tained home, landlords can rent it to another family without notification.

“That’s the issue we are trying to get at,” Gard said. “The main goal is to prevent kids from being lead poisoned in the first place.”

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

nkelly@jg.net