3

tended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more

families;

1

2

(2) "dwelling" means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or in

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

(3) "family" includes a single individual;

(4) "person" includes one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, legal representatives, mutual companies, jointstock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers, and fiduciaries.

SEC. 6. This Act shall take effect on the first day of the 13 sixth month after the date of enactment of this Act.

This is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department on S. 3941, a bill "To provide civil penalties for the use of lead-based paint in certain dwellings".

This Department is deeply concerned over the problem of
lead-based paint poisoning. We are presently examining a
number of our programs, involving such things as housing
construction, code enforcement and rehabilitation, to determine
how they can be adapted to provide a more effective response to
this problem.

It seems to us, however, that so far as paint removal is concerned, the appropriate Federal role is one of encouraging more extensive and improved State and local programs. We do not think that role should extend to the kind of direct Federal requirement proposed in S. 3941. Apart from legal problems

such a requirement may raise, it appears to us that the bill assumes that there is an unwillingness or inability on the part of the States and localities to act in this area. In fact, however, a number of States and localities have already commenced special programs to detect and secure the removal of lead-based paint, as well as to discover and treat the children who may be affected by eating lead-based paint.

These State and local programs are closely, and properly, related to other health and code enforcement programs for which State and local governments are responsible. To the extent

that there are difficulties facing these programs -- as there clearly are -- they involve such things as how to detect the paint, how best to remove it with a minimum of risk and disruption, how to provide for the costs of removal, and how to assure that these costs are not passed on to tenants who can least afford to pay or do not contribute to the further abandonment of housing. We do not believe that the type of direct Federal requirement proposed in S. 3941 contributes to the solution of these problems. If anything, it would magnify and complicate them by imposing upon the Federal government a massive and duplicative enforcement responsibility without providing the tools which fair and effective enforcement would necessarily require.

In our opinion, an examination of the specific features or characteristics of the bill re-enforces the above comments. Thus, we note that sections 2 and 3 do not appear to authorize any agency of government to inspect housing which might contain lead-based paint surfaces. Section 3(a) does not specify the authority which is to determine violations and impose fines, does not provide for a hearing prior to the imposition of the fines, and does not provide any specific mechanism for achieving the real objective removal of the paint in those cases where the penalty is ineffective or cannot be collected. And section 3(b) appears to us deficient in failing to provide standards by which the Secretary could exercise his authority to compromise any fine which has been imposed.

-

We also question the exclusion of housing not covered by title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 since such housing is hardly immune from the problems with which the bill is designed to deal. Moreover, title VIII is applicable only when dwellings are offered for sale or rent, a feature that hardly seems consistent with the objectives of S. 3941. It may be that the references to title VIII are intended to bring into play inspection and enforcement mechanisms which, as noted above, are otherwise lacking. If this is the intent, however, it is not at all clear how the title VIII procedures could appropriately be applied. Title VIII does not involve collection of a civil penalty of the kind proposed in the bill and its procedures depend heavily upon complaints or information received from individuals affected by discrimination. It is difficult to see how such procedures could be effective in dealing with a problem which exists in no small measure because the families most affected have no way of knowing that they are exposed to risks that today may be detectable only through laboratory testing or

the use of highly specialized equipment still in the testing stage. For the above reasons, we do not favor enactment of this bill.

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

918T CONGRESS 2D SESSION

S. 4046

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 1, 1970

Mr. PROXMIRE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency

A BILL

To provide that certain expenditures shall be regarded as local grants-in-aid to the tornado urban renewal project in Monroe, Wisconsin.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That, notwithstanding the date of commencement of con4 struction of streets and highways in the tornado urban re5 newal area in Monroe, Wisconsin, local expenditures made 6 in connection therewith shall, to the extent otherwise

7

eligible, be counted as a local grant-in-aid to the tornado 8 urban renewal project (Wisconsin R-27) in accordance 9 with the provisions of title I of the Housing Act of 1949.