Overview
Title
To amend the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act to provide for additional procedures for families with children under the age of 6, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The "Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2024" is like a new rule saying houses with kids under six need to be checked for old paint that can make kids sick, and if it's found, it must be fixed quickly to keep everyone safe.
Summary AI
The bill, titled the "Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2024," aims to amend the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act to enhance safety procedures for families with young children under the age of 6 in housing where lead-based paint hazards may exist. It requires property owners to conduct risk assessments for lead hazards and mandates quick action to control any identified hazards, ensuring the health and safety of residents. The bill also provides exceptions for certain properties and sets relocation guidelines for affected families, with necessary appropriations authorized for implementation from fiscal years 2025 through 2029.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
House Bill 8171, titled the "Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2024," aims to amend the existing Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. The central objective of this legislation is to introduce new measures specifically designed to safeguard families with children under the age of six from the risks associated with lead-based paint. The bill mandates that housing receiving federal assistance or mortgage insurance undergo thorough risk assessments for lead hazards. If any lead-based paint hazards are identified, the bill requires remediation within 30 days. The legislation permits affected families to relocate to safer housing without facing penalties if such hazards are not rectified.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise from the bill's proposed amendments. Firstly, the new procedures could impose significant administrative burdens and costs on housing authorities or owners. Given the specificity of the requirements, these entities might face challenges in compliance and resources allocation. Secondly, the bill contains ambiguous language regarding regulations that could lead to inconsistent application. Particularly, the discretion given to the Secretary in defining standards based on health could be interpreted variably across jurisdictions.
Another concern is the bill's inadequate addressing of relocation processes for affected families. Without clear guidelines on how relocations should be executed and prioritized, the bill could lead to inconsistencies in supporting vulnerable families. Moreover, the authorization for appropriations uses the vague phrase "such sums as may be necessary," which lacks specificity and accountability measures, potentially leading to uncontrolled spending.
Impact on the Public
This legislative effort carries the potential to significantly impact public health, particularly among young children at risk of lead poisoning from paint in older housing units. By requiring rigorous testing and abatement procedures, the bill aims to reduce health hazards and promote safer living conditions. However, the complexity of implementation and potential administrative hurdles could delay or complicate these benefits reaching those in need. Families could benefit greatly if the system works efficiently, but any delays or mismanagement could leave those most vulnerable still at risk.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The bill's impact would be felt differently across various stakeholders. Families with young children living in potentially hazardous conditions would theoretically receive enhanced protections and opportunities for safer living environments. However, housing authorities and property owners who must comply with these new regulations could face increased operational challenges. This could lead to higher costs and may require them to divert resources from other areas.
For government entities overseeing these mandates, ensuring consistent and fair application will be a critical challenge. The lack of defined patrols for spending and relocation might require additional oversight mechanisms to prevent misuse of funds and to help manage resources efficiently.
Overall, while the intended public health benefits of the bill are substantial, particularly for young children, effective implementation, clarity in regulations, and appropriations control will be essential to realizing those benefits without undue economic or administrative burden.
Financial Assessment
The "Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2024" primarily addresses enhancing safety procedures to prevent lead-based paint exposure for families with young children. A crucial component of the bill pertains to financial matters, particularly appropriations and the potential costs incurred by implementing the proposed regulations.
Financial Appropriations
The bill includes an authorization of appropriations in Section 3, which states that there is the availability of funds "as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029" to carry out its amendments. This broad language, while offering flexibility in ensuring adequate funding, also raises concerns regarding financial accountability. The absence of a specified funding limit or clear financial targets could lead to uncontrolled or undefined spending.
This lack of specificity aligns with the issues noted in the appropriations section of the bill, where there is an expressed concern about financial transparency. The bill's allowance for funds based on necessity presents a risk for poorly monitored financial outlays, lacking mechanisms that hold decision-makers accountable for the effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Administrative and Implementation Costs
In addition to the direct financial appropriations, the bill implies potential increased administrative costs for housing authorities and owners. By mandating comprehensive new regulations and procedures, such as risk assessments and lead hazard controls, owners might experience heightened financial and operational burdens. These mandates may require additional resources, such as hiring experts for inspections or conducting timely hazard control measures, thereby increasing operational costs.
The focus on risk assessments and prompt hazard mitigation, particularly within a strict 30-day window, underscores the need for housing projects to maintain readiness, potentially requiring investments in training and infrastructure to comply with the regulations. The financial implications extend beyond direct appropriations to the necessary allocation of resources for compliance.
Relocation Costs
Section 2 also includes a clause for emergency relocations. While the bill outlines conditions under which families can relocate if lead hazards remain unaddressed, it does not provide detailed financial planning for these eventualities. The potential financial strain on housing resources to accommodate such relocations is notable. Without explicit funding strategies or allocation models, this provision could lead to inefficiencies in how assistance is distributed across jurisdictions.
Furthermore, while emphasizing relocation is crucial for family safety, lacking financial clarity in how these moves will be supported or prioritized might exacerbate inequities in housing assistance. The bill fails to describe how relocation efforts will be funded, potentially impacting the availability and allocation of housing resources.
Need for Oversight and Transparency
The absence of explicit oversight or reporting requirements compounds financial concerns. To mitigate risks of financial mismanagement, the bill could benefit from including clear mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating how funds are allocated and spent. This would not only ensure fiscal responsibility but also bolster public confidence in achieving the intended safety outcomes without unnecessary bureaucracy or waste.
In summary, while the "Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2024" focuses on improving housing safety, its financial stipulations require careful scrutiny. The lack of detailed funding parameters and oversight mechanisms presents challenges, emphasizing the need for a more structured financial framework to guide its implementation effectively.
Issues
The amendment in Section 2 that mandates new regulations and procedures for lead-based paint control might impose increased administrative costs and burdens on housing authorities or owners of covered housing, raising concerns about efficiency and effectiveness of such mandates if not properly managed.
The vague phrase 'in accordance with any other standard or exception the Secretary deems appropriate based on health-based standards' in Section 2 could lead to inconsistent application or interpretation across cases or jurisdictions, potentially resulting in legal and fairness issues.
The relocation clause in Section 2 regarding families with young children lacks specificity on implementation details, such as how emergency relocations are to be prioritized and managed, which could lead to inefficiencies or inequities in how assistance is provided, affecting vulnerable families.
The authorization of appropriations in Section 3 using the term 'such sums as may be necessary' lacks clarity and precision, possibly leading to uncontrolled or undefined spending, raising financial accountability and transparency concerns.
The absence of oversight or reporting requirements within the bill, especially regarding appropriations in Section 3, raises issues surrounding accountability and transparency in the utilization of funds.
The reliance on extensive references to sections of U.S. Code and federal acts without definitions or context (in Section 2) may render the text difficult for non-specialists to understand, potentially limiting public access to comprehend the legislative implications.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the act states that the official name of the legislation is the "Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2024."
2. Amendments to the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendments to the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act require property owners to conduct lead risk assessments for housing where young children under age 6 will live, especially if the housing receives federal assistance. If lead hazards are found, they must be fixed within 30 days, with specific exceptions allowed, and families affected may have the right to relocate to safer housing without extra costs or penalties if the hazards aren't addressed.
Money References
- Section 302(a) of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4822(a)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting after “mortgage insurance” the following: “, tenant-based rental assistance under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)),”; (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following: “(4) ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 6.— “(A) RISK ASSESSMENT.— “(i) DEFINITION.—In this subparagraph, the term ‘covered housing’ means target housing, as defined in section 1004 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4851b), that— “(I) is covered by an application for mortgage insurance or housing assistance payments under a program administered by the Secretary; or “(II) otherwise receives more than $5,000 in project-based assistance under a Federal housing program. “(ii) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2024, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations that— “(I) require the owner of covered housing in which a family with a child of less than 6 years of age will reside or is expected to reside to conduct an initial risk assessment for lead-based paint hazards— “(aa) in the case of covered housing receiving tenant-based rental assistance under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), not later than 15 days after the date on which the family and the owner submit a request for approval of a tenancy or lease renewal, whichever occurs first; “(bb) in the case of covered housing receiving public housing assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) or project-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), not later than 15 days after the date on which a physical condition inspection occurs; and “(cc) in the case of covered housing not described in item (aa) or (bb), not later than a date established by the Secretary; “(II) provide that a visual assessment alone is not sufficient for purposes of complying with subclause (I); “(III) require that, if lead-based paint hazards are identified by an initial risk assessment conducted under subclause (I), the owner of the covered housing shall— “(aa) not later than 30 days after the date on which the initial risk assessment is conducted, control the lead-based paint hazards, including achieving clearance in accordance with regulations promulgated under section 402 or 404 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2682, 2684), as applicable; and “(bb) in accessible and alternative formats consistent with the requirements under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), provide notice to all residents in the covered housing affected by the initial risk assessment, and provide notice in the common areas of the covered housing, that lead-based paint hazards were identified and will be controlled within the 30-day period described in item (aa); and “(IV) provide that there shall be no extension of the 30-day period described in subclause (III)(aa). “(iii) EXCEPTIONS.—The regulations promulgated under clause (ii) shall provide an exception to the requirement under subclause (I) of such clause for covered housing— “(I) if the owner of the covered housing submits to the Secretary documentation— “(aa) that the owner conducted a risk assessment of the covered housing for lead-based paint hazards during the 12-month period preceding the date on which the family is expected to reside in the covered housing; and “(bb) of any clearance examinations of lead-based paint hazard control work resulting from the risk assessment described in item (aa) that show that the housing passed the clearance examination; “(II)(aa) if a lead-based paint inspection of the covered housing determined that lead-based paint was not present in the covered housing; or “(bb) from which all lead-based paint has been identified and removed and clearance has been achieved in accordance with regulations promulgated under section 402 or 404 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2682, 2684) or under this section, as applicable; “(III) if— “(aa) lead-based paint hazards are identified in the dwelling unit in the covered housing in which the family will reside or is expected to reside; “(bb) the dwelling unit is unoccupied; “(cc) the owner of the covered housing, without any further delay in occupancy or increase in rent, provides the family with another dwelling unit in the covered housing that has no lead-based paint hazards; and “(dd) the common areas servicing the new dwelling unit have no lead-based paint hazards; and “(IV) in accordance with any other standard or exception the Secretary deems appropriate based on health-based standards. “(B) RELOCATION.
3. Authorization of appropriations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows for the allocation of money as needed to implement the changes made by section 2, for the fiscal years from 2025 to 2029.