Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (text: CR S4861)
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
S. 5455, titled the ``Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2026'', amends the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act to add new rules for families with children under the age of 6. The bill requires owners of certain federally assisted or insured housing to conduct initial risk assessments for lead-based paint hazards when these families live or are expected to live in the housing. It explicitly states that a visual assessment alone is not enough to meet this requirement. If lead-based paint hazards are found, the owner must control the hazards and achieve clearance within a strict 30-day period with no extensions allowed. Additionally, the bill permits families to relocate on an emergency basis without penalties or waitlists if the lead hazards are not controlled properly.
Yes· 3 of 16
- Scored +8
Would children be better off under this?
The bill directly protects young children under the age of six from the severe health dangers of lead-based paint hazards in their homes.
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Low-income households receiving federal housing assistance benefit significantly from mandated lead risk assessments and hazard controls.
- Scored +6
Does this make housing cost less?
The bill improves living conditions and emergency relocation rights for families in federally assisted housing by addressing lead-based paint hazards.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Property owners face strict 30-day compliance deadlines and potential financial burdens to remediate lead hazards.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary for appropriations to carry out lead-safe housing procedures from 2027 through 2031.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Initial Risk Assessments for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: Section 2(3)(A)(ii)(I)(aa) requires owners of covered housing receiving tenant-based rental assistance under section 8(o) to conduct an initial risk assessment for lead-based paint hazards not later than 15 days after the family and owner submit a request for approval of a tenancy or lease renewal. This ensures that homes rented by families with young children are actively checked for dangerous lead hazards.
-
Mandatory Hazard Control Within 30 Days: Section 2(3)(A)(ii)(III)(aa) mandates that if lead-based paint hazards are identified, the owner must control the hazards and achieve clearance not later than 30 days after the initial risk assessment. This provision protects children by forcing a prompt cleanup of toxic paint without allowing any extensions of the 30-day deadline.
-
Emergency Relocation Rights: Section 2(3)(B)(i) allows families with a child under the age of 6 to relocate on an emergency basis without penalties, rent payments for the old unit, waitlists, or lapses in assistance if lead-based paint hazards are identified and not controlled. This gives families a safe way to escape dangerous living conditions immediately.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Strict 30-Day Limit and Compliance Burdens for Property Owners: Section 2(3)(A)(ii)(III) requires property owners to control identified lead-based paint hazards and achieve clearance within 30 days, with no extensions allowed under section 2(3)(A)(ii)(IV). While intended to protect residents, this rigid timeline could potentially place severe logistical or financial pressure on owners, which might lead to housing availability issues or strain landlord-tenant relations if contractors are not immediately available.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — The bill directly protects young children under the age of six from the severe health dangers of lead-based paint hazards in their homes. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households receiving federal housing assistance benefit significantly from mandated lead risk assessments and hazard controls. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents living in federally assisted multifamily housing benefit from comprehensive lead paint risk assessments. Would women be better off under this? — Mothers and primary caregivers of young children benefit directly from safer housing conditions and emergency relocation options. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults who are parents of young children benefit from safer rental housing options and emergency relocation rights. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Black Americans, who are disproportionately affected by substandard housing conditions, benefit from stricter lead hazard controls. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Hispanic Americans living in federally assisted housing will benefit from improved lead safety measures. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrant families with young children residing in assisted housing are better protected against lead poisoning hazards. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-income families utilizing certain federally assisted or insured housing benefit from safer living conditions. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Individuals with disabilities benefit from mandatory notices provided in accessible and alternative formats under civil rights laws. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans and their young families living in federally assisted or insured housing receive enhanced protection from lead hazards. Would business owners be better off under this? — Property owners face strict 30-day compliance deadlines and potential financial burdens to remediate lead hazards.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The bill improves living conditions and emergency relocation rights for families in federally assisted housing by addressing lead-based paint hazards. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The bill mandates that notices regarding lead-based paint hazards be provided in formats consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires property owners to provide clear notice to residents when lead-based paint hazards are identified. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill directs federal agencies to promulgate new mandatory regulations regarding lead hazard assessments for assisted housing.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill mandates risk assessments and hazard controls for lead-based paint in federally assisted housing.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary for appropriations to carry out lead-safe housing procedures from 2027 through 2031.
- 9/22/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (text: CR S4861)
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Todd YoungRepublican · Indiana