Statement of Administration Policy: S. 391 - Lead Exposure Reduction Act of 1991

(Senate)
(Reid (D) Nevada and 15 others)

While the Administration supports the goal of reducing lead exposure to the fullest extent practicable, it opposes enactment of S. 391. The Administration supports continued research into the health effects, exposure routes, and remediation techniques for lead exposure. However, it believes that this research should precede, rather than follow, new legislative requirements. In addition, the bill's emphasis on new regulatory requirements could undermine current Federal lead exposure reduction activities without producing the intended health or environmental benefits.

The Federal government already regulates the major sources of lead exposure in food, homes, the work place, and the environment. Several Federal agencies have already established strict lead standards pursuant to their existing statutory authorities. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Center for Disease Control have issued comprehensive strategies to further reduce lead exposure, particularly to children.

Contrary to existing statutes, S. 391 would mandate minimization of lead sources without regard to the risk of exposure, the cost of its reduction, or the risk of lead substitutes. Current Federal efforts focus on reducing high blood lead levels in children and significantly reducing unacceptable lead exposure. Some provisions of S. 391 would disrupt these efforts by targeting low risk exposure sources, thereby diverting scarce resources from more effective activities to reduce childhood lead exposure.

S. 391 would inject the Federal Government into areas that have traditionally been the domain of State and local governments. By mandating a specified disclosure statement on most residential real estate contracts, the bill would extend Federal power over the terms of State-based contract law. The disclosure provision also has the potential to disrupt the private real estate market. The Administration is working diligently to increase the capacity of State and local governments and the private sector to carry out effective lead detection and abatement work. Currently, however, that capacity is minimal and concentrated in a few States. To impose a national disclosure requirement before the capacity to respond exists could increase risk through unnecessary or improper abatement, frustrate consumers, and set back overall lead hazard reduction efforts. In addition, by mandating a State registry of properties with lead-based paint, S. 391 could significantly interfere with diverse State laws concerning land title records.

S. 391 would impose an unprecedented Federal presence and control in market decisions. The bill would establish Federal Government control over the development of products without any evidence of the risk and exposure associated with such products and without consideration of the costs of the resulting market disruption. The bill could also disrupt successful lead acid battery recycling programs under which most of these batteries are already being recycled. EPA recently concluded a regulatory negotiation on battery recycling, in part because it found that a Federal rule to encourage battery recycling would not achieve any significant further reduction in environmental and/or health risks.